From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 2 02:35:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:35:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: > I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah > to pay workers on time. > The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due > only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus > for example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis ... - it > is not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution) > Two questions ... >From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee prefers. Can you cite the location where the CC said that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 19:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word "l'aynanu". It is sort of "dayenu" in reverse: It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen. In my experience, most of the tefilos that have been canonized in the Siddur and Machzor are for major requests. This one seems almost trivial. If anyone wants to request such a thing, they can include it in their personal tefilos, and I'm sure many of us do. But to include it in the Siddur and Machzor? Granted that it is just one single word, but it was enough to catch my attention. Are there other examples of something similar? Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:25:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> Message-ID: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." Generally I tell people to post their jokes to Areivim. However, I held on to this post because it gave me an excuse to share thoughts from R' Hirsch Meisels of Friends with Diabetes, who spent much of the Fall '03 newsletter trying to convince diabetics who were told by their doctors to eat on Yom Kippur that eating is indeed the holier choice. See http://www.friendswithdiabetes.org/files/pdf/tishrei57641.pdf As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. Among many other citations and arguments, R' Mesels also tells a non-humorous version of this story: An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 4 20:14:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:14:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? Message-ID: When I began writing this post, the subject line was going to mention Rosh Hashana. But as I wrote and developed my thoughts, I realized that my question is not really specific to RH, but is rather about the status of the proper noun "Hashem". To avoid ambiguity, I am referring to the two-syllable "Hashem", and not to the three-syllable "Ado---". In this post, spellings and pronunciations and abbreviations are important, so I am trying to keep everything as close to the original as possible. Over Yom Tov, I was speaking with someone about the exact words to use for the Yehi Ratzons on the various simanim that are eaten on Rosh Hashana night. At first, he said that he does not say the Shaymos, but then he clarified his position, and said that his practice is to begin each with "Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokaynu vAylokay avosaynu..." He said that those are the actual words he uses: "Hashem" and not "Ado---", and the other with a Kuf and not a Heh. I know that some machzorim do omit the shaymos, but most include them, so I did a bit of research, and then I showed him these two sources: 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. I was flabbergasted, and decided to turn to the chevreh for your thoughts and comments. I cannot image why someone would pronounce "Elokaynu" - with a Kuf - in a sincere tefilla. I can easily see using it in zemiros, if one is merely engaged in a Shabbos singalong and not a prayer. But I would hope and assume that those who are eating the simanim on RH night are doing so with a heartfelt prayer (as advised in the Mishna Brura that I referred to). In fact, I'd go even farther, and suggest that when someone says "Elokaynu", the action of replacing the Heh with a Kuf is "m'galeh daato" - it explicitly reveals that his kavana was to *avoid* saying a Shem, and that he is *not* saying a prayer. (It would be equivalent to telling someone "Tonight is the Nth day of Sefiras Haomer" with specific kavana NOT to be yotzay, so that he can count again later with a bracha.) But I must admit that I don't know if the same applies to the two-syllable "Hashem". One could argue that "Hashem" is not a real word in standard English, and therefore not a valid Shem for brachos, but that it *is* a real word in the dialect known as "Yeshivish", and that it therefore *is* a valid Shem is such contexts. I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by pronouncing them that way? Akiva Miller After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> References: <828D5629-EB3C-40A5-94DB-EF79E1470629@cox.net> <20161005032524.GA18461@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From my own experience, I can state flat out that serving in Zahal on Shabbat never bothered me. We were involved in operational duties that provided real security to all residents. Having to drive or speak on the radio or whatever was simply part of that job. Ben On 10/5/2016 5:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As he writes in the opening letter from the editor: > > At R Chaim Brisker ones expressed himself, "A mohel never felt > annoyance at having to perform a circumcision on Shabbos. He is > happy to do what the Torah demands, and those who are required > to eat on Yom Kippur must have the same perspective. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 08:14:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Near the end of the list of Avinu Malkenu, we find "... n'kom l'aynaynu : nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch." : : Praying that Hashem should avenge the spilled blood of His servants is a : very reasonable request, especially in the context of the lines before and : after that one. But I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of the word : "l'aynanu"... I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:38:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin es roa' hagezeira, on the other. Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. And that is indeed what ended up happening on Purim. Haman's decree was never repealed, but our fate was still reversed. Fate is never inescapable -- ein mazalos beYisrael. Viyhi Ratzon that the same should be true if any gezeiros ra'os exist (ch"v) on Yom haKi-purim... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:02:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:02:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Individual vs. Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210239.GC3664@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:16:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From Nishmat Avraham -I wonder if the wonder is based on the assumption : that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts? (that is one could : consider the effect on the justice system of a judges decision differently : than an individual citizen's "rights") : Rav Yonah Emanuel zt"l also commented that he did not know of a source : which states that it would be permissible for a Dayan to pass judgment : in favor of a litigant who was guilty if he was threatened with his life : to do so. He thought that nevertheless it would be difficult to believe : that a Dayan would be permitted to pronounce a guilty party innocent : even if he was threatened with his life, for if so this would lead to a : total collapse of law and order. I wondered why this situation should be : any different from any other transgression.... Do you mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That there are issues with a community that don't exist with a set of individuals? If so, I agree. Reminds me of a minyan, which has a corporate entity spiritual significance beyond being 10 people. Perhaps the metaphysical significance is a rational consequence of the sociological significance. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 14:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Less remains in cracks. Thus, less beli'ah. :> And besides, one can make nosein ta'am lifgam arguments. :> I think the smoothness of rolled metal is a bigger issue than which :> metal we're using (cast iron vs stainless). And soap. : If we were talking about a b'dieved situation, where one already used a : keli for the other gender, then I would understand how these factors are : relevant, because the less mamashus is present, then the greater the chance : that we have shishim against it. I think you're being way too pedantic about what I wrote. In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, even in lekhat-chilah cases. (Nosein ta'am lifgam is usable lechat-khilah, AFAIK. But I threw that in as a tangent.) As I wrote, I think that the flatness of the metal, even on a level one can't see (but perhaps feel as more or less "sleek") has more to do with beli'ah today than what metal the pot is made from. How they're washed, or anything else we raised. Soap, by extracting lipids / fatty acids / whatever they're called, from those tiny imperfections could be the difference as to whether or not the amount of remaining food particles is ignorable. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 19:37:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah Message-ID: In the thread "Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi", R' Micha Berger wrote: > While RYME started writing AhS first, he started with CM. The > MB was written before AhS OC, and is in fact cited in it.) This is only partly accurate, as it leaves out some important details. I would like to direct y'all's attention to http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/AhSCitesMb.pdf I became aware of this list when R' Moshe Feldman posted the following to Areivim in June 2002: > ... Micha has graciously posted a list of 32 places (with > some info about each) where the AhS comments on the MB. See > > Interestingly, they are in simanim 1-91 and in hil. Shabbos, > not anywhere else. Simple explanation: If you look in into > to Kol Kisvei CC, the some of the CC writes that the CC > published the first chelek of MB and then decided to skip to > hil. Shabbos because he felt a pressing need to get that out > as soon as posible. > > ... the list ... was given to me by Larry Teitelman and he > believes that the original author is Rabbi Yehuda Dolgin of > L.A. My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. But the list also strongly suggests that Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein either wrote the AhS on Hilchos Yom Tov *before* the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov was published, or at least, he wrote it so soon afterwards that he did not have enough opportunity to quote and comment on it. The list shows clearly that if the MB on Hilchos Yom Tov *had* been available, then RYME surely would have mentioned it here and there. ["Hilchos Yom Tov" is obviously an example, applicable to all the sections that aren't on that list.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:00:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg posted: : An elderly Jewish man, Sam Cohen, 87 years of age... : ... [The Rabbi] said, "Sam, you're an idolater," to which Sam angrily : replied,"What do you mean, rabbi?! I'm willing to sacrifice my life for : Yom Kippur!" "Exactly," said the rabbi. You're worshipping Yom Kippur, : not the Almighty, Who has commanded you not fast if there is a danger : to your health." I've heard many versions of this same idea, and it is well worth repeating. Thank you. R' Micha Berger gave a similar story from R' Meisels: > An ill person was advised not to fact on Yom Kippur, both by his > doctor and by the venerable R Yaakov Kamenecki. He chose to fast > anyway, thereby causing his condition to deteriorate until it > led to his death. Rav Yaakov then refused to eulogize the > deceased, stating that he had committed suicide. Here is yet another, one of my favorites about that same Rav Yaakov Kamenecki, from the biography "Making of a Gadol", written by his son, R' Nathan Kamenetsky (pages 1111-1112): > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 20:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a communications problem. I suspect we may be using the same words for fundamentally different ideas. In hopes of making some progress, I'd like to give some basic concepts as I understand them, and perhaps someone can show me my error. Let's begin with the following two cases where a keli needs to be "clean": 1) The keli is one which does not absorb ta'am, so I can use it interchangeably. This is because ta'am is the only worry, and there isn't any ta'am to worry about. This logic works only if the keli is clean; if there is any food residue on the keli, then we are not dealing merely with "ta'am" and "b'liah", and the halachos are much stricter. 2) The keli does absorb ta'am, but I can get rid of that ta'am by kashering it with hag'alah. Hag'alah only works on ta'am and b'liah. It does not get rid of food residue. Therefore, I have to get rid of all the food residue before the hag'alah begins. My understanding is that the rule in case #2 is whether or not there is any tangible residue on the keli. Soap is extremely helpful in getting rid of residue, with the result that a keli can be successfully cleaned where soap is available, enabling us to the kasher that keli. If soap had not been available, we might have had to discard the keli (or kasher it with libun). Similarly, a smooth surface is easier to clean than a rough surface, and so the quality of modern kelim makes them easier to clean, and hence easier to kasher. But the goal of all this cleaning is simply to remove the mamashus. Once the mamashus is gone, THEN we can either: 1) use it as new (if it doesn't absorb ta'am) or 2) kasher it with hag'alah (if it is metal). The point I'm trying to establish is that a clean pot is *not* a new pot. No matter how well you clean the pot, that is only the first step towards removing the INTANGIBLE ta'am that got absorbed into the pot itself. The ta'am is not hiding in the rough surface of the pot - it is absorbed into the very material that the pot is made of. Does anyone see the point where I erred? Is it possible, for example, that a non-absorbent keli could be switched between meat and dairy even if it is not totally clean? Is it possible that a certain small amount of actual, tangible, mamashus residue could be considered negligible for these halalchos? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 5 23:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ezra Chwat via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu Message-ID: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> "It's not enough to ask Him to take vengeance; we also ask that you and I should be around to see it happen.... Or maybe this request is more significant than I realize?" This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah , reiterated in Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). Let's limit it to this: By nature and definition, the effectivity of vengeance is directly proportionate to the immediacy to the crime. The IDF recently realized this by expediting the legal process of the destroying of terrorist's home, after discovering that after a few months they were losing the point. The ultimate and archetypical avenger- Moshe Rabbeinu (Ex. 2, Deut. 32), wastes no time in slaying the Egyptian. The original nusach of Avinu Malkenu (and Av Harachamim where this appears as well) clearly contains the immediacy clause, a few examples from Mahzorim written in the time of the Rishonim will suffice: Bimhera beyamenu https://www.wdl.org/en/item/7382/view/1/223/ Biyamenu l'eyneinu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.326 fol. 32v, and the same, fol. 65b Avinu malkenu n'kom leyneinu Avinu malkenu N'kom BiYamenu: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.323 fol. 17r L'eyneinu: http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26730681 leaf 10a Needess to say, a Siddur ot Mahzor that lacks this clause is merely conforming to the censored version. This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder (Num. 35). Dr. Ezra Chwat From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:08:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> Message-ID: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Ezra Chwat wrote: : This is not the place to expound on the value of Divine vengeance on the : persecutors of Israel, as this is well expressed in Torah, reiterated in : Neviim and Ketuvim, reinforced in Hazal and re-emphasized in Kabbalah. I : will also avoid lecturing on the most basic Hillul Hashem when such : vengeance is lacking (eg- Sam I 17; Kings II 19; Ezek. 20). ... : This is not a Hashkafa issue. The centrality of vengeance in a : nation-against-nation attrition can be felt only to the degree that one : see's himself in the geographic and epochal context of a nation. I can : see how, (Moshe Rabeinu aside), immediate vengeance is less of a value : in the context of individual attrition. Needless to say, between Jews we : are commanded to refrain from any vengeance (Lev. 19) except for murder : (Num. 35). You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". Divine Vengence shows that the world is running to a plan. Hashem granting someone success in committing revenge doesn't have to show that any more than the original offense proved the lack of plan. It is only an indication to those who are already convinced. Which is how I understood "le'eineinu". Moshe didn't only take revenge on the Egyptian, he prevented the Egyptian from killing the next guy. There is a functional element here that goes beyond neqamah. So I do not see how one has to imply the other. R Chaim Markowitz asked in 2004 whether there is an issur neqamah WRT nachriim, but didn't get an answer. ("Lo siqom ... es benei amekha" wouldn't be it.) I found the Rambam De'os 7 makes lo siqom out to be about the damage to the noqeim. (Thus its inclusion in dei'os.) "Ra'ui le'adam lihuos ma'vir al kol divrei ha'olam" because the mevinim know it's all hevel vehavai and not worh taking neqamah over. Which would argue against taking neqamah on nakhriim. I am also wondering if it's relevant that 7:7 has "hanoqeim es chaveiro", whereas 7:8 is "vekhein kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". What does "chaveiro" mean in Rambam-speak? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 02:40:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:40:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzom Kal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006094034.GD31786@aishdas.org> RAM, quoting MOAG: > An action - or better said, inaction - by my father when he > assumed his rabbinical post in Toronto in 5698 (1938) will > reveal his attitude toward a revocation of the fast in an > analogous situation. He was asked prior to his first Yom Kippur > as a major rav in the city to publish an announcement in the > daily Yiddish newspaper that the fast was not over till a > certain hour. When he asked why such an announcement was > necessary, he was told that there were many shuls in the city > which had no rabbis to guide their congregants, and they usually > completed Services early and broke the fast too soon. My father, > however, refused to publicize such a proclamation. He explained > that among the thousands of Jews who davent in such places there > was surely at least one who was not permitted to fast altogether. > It is precisely because such a person did not have a rav to turn > to personally that he would endanger his life during the few > extra minutes by which the suggested public announcement would > delay the close of Yom Kippur. Therefore, the only way to keep > that individual for fasting those extra few minutes was by > letting all the other, healthy Jews break the fast early. He > gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to eat > unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In this situation > the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Sounds like my argument for why O Jews should vote "Pro-Choice". If there is echad mini revava who would be denied an abortion when halakhah considers it piquach nefesh, we cannot stop the other 9,999. And there is no secular law that would match halakhah's guidelines in every case. But on a less prevocative note... According to the ge'onim, tzeis is 3/4 of a mil after sheqi'ah. Even adjusting for Toronto and assuming a 24 minute mil, we're not talking even 25 min after sheqi'ah. Most of our time after tzeis (where "our" = those who do not hold like R' Tam) is trying to get something sane out of the gemara's 3/4 mil and yet the literal meaning of the words tzeis hakokhavim. Were these shuls ending THAT early? Maybe we can be melamdim zekhus? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 03:33:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:33:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] shofar Message-ID: An old discussion among rishonim is whether the mitzva of shofar is on the blowing or the listening (or both) In our shul the teruah sounds to me (and many others) like 6 short blasts which is only bi-dieved. I spoke with the baal toheah and he said that because he has had previous complaints he actually blows about 12 short blasts. In fact he recorded himself before RH and looked at the image and he could see 12 waves. Question: according to the shitah that the mitzva is listening to the shofar does it make a difference that 12 blasts are blown while the average person hears only 6 because they are so short and in rapid succession? (again bi-deved one is certainly OK) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:05:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:05:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are tradition and not changed Some examples In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been transferred to the end of the phrase.One example is "melech elyon" . The Machzorim that I have looked with a translation all clearly show that the wording "Melech Elyon" starts each stanza which should end with "La-adei ad yimloch" Nevertheless the widespread minhag is to end each phrase with "Melech Elyon" There are several versions of Melech Elyon by different authors. In our version after Melech Elyon which mention "Melech Evyon" twice which actually comes from a different author os Melech Elyon Thus for example in the melech elyon of schararit second day each stanza has 6 parts. However the melech evyon has only 3 parts because it comes from a different version Vechol Maaminim is the end of each phrase but we say it as the first part . This results that in several cases there is a disjoint between the first and second part of the phrase. Similarly in "Maaseh Elokenu", " Hashem Melech" Another example is "Atah hu Elokenu" we say - dagul me-revava - hu sach vayehi", and also "Vezivah ve-nivrau - Zichro le-nezach" which doesnt make sense. The original was "hu sach vayeh - Vezivah ve-nivrau" and "Zichro le-nezach - chai olamim" The introduction to the machzor I use claims that the original minhag was that the chazzan would say half the phrase and the congregation would complete the phrase (see Machzor Heindheim). Later the chazzan said everything which led to all sorts of errors. Bottom line once errors the tefillah it is difficult to undo them! -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:23:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:23:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> On 10/5/2016 6:14 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I think it's that we're more concerned that the world see that yeish > din veyeish Dayan than we have some need for the wicked people to get > theirs. All, as long as they stop doing bad to us, why should we care? I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to be condemned. When we are told not to take vengeance, it is *solely* against fellow Jews (bnei amecha). It is not bloodthirsty or morally compromised to want to see those who oppressed you brought low. Even ignoring the perennial argument I have with RMB about rejoicing over the fall of an enemy, I don't think *anyone* suggests that it's wrong to feel comforted by seeing *God* wreaking vengeance on those who have spilled our blood. We know that eventually, the evil will get their comeuppance. But given the choice of seeing that comeuppance in my lifetime and having to rely on the fact that it'll happen by-and-by, I'll take the former every time. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:35:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:35:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> References: <55694b4bab7c4c07a329e2813b968af7@Ex1.Nli.loc> <20161006100824.GF31786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 1:08 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. > > C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of Hashem's vengeance. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 04:06:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56BAA207-D226-4206-A501-6601531DF9B1@balb.in> I'm not sure why nobody? has mentioned the significance of the Torah Shebiksav Posuk in Ekev 'Ki Lo al HALECHEM levado Yichyeh Ho'odom' I would have thought that this is significant? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:29:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 12:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > A thought struck me about the difference between Achashveirosh's > insistance that anything written besheim hamelekh, and sealed betaba'as > hamelekh, ein hashiv OT1H, and uteshuvah, utefillah, utzedaqah ma'avirin > es roa' hagezeira, on the other. > > Especially given the idea that any reference to hamelekh (or perhaps only > hamelekh without "Achashveirosh") refers on a second level to haMelekh. > > But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise > a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one > passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:45:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to : be condemned... What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam. Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth neqamah. At 10:35 am EDT Lisa replied to me: >> You shifted from Divine Vengence to what we are commanded to do. >> C.f. "Hashem yi[n]qom damo". > I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate distinction. Hashem refers > to our attack on the Midianites as nikmat bnei Yisrael. Moshe refers to > it as nikmat Hashem. I think there are times when we are the vehicle of > Hashem's vengeance. Sure, when the victory is part of the nissim giluyim of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, each can point to the others' role in the victory. Still, the attitude expressed by Hil' Dei'os appears to me to be the ideal we should be striving for. I think there is no motivation for the argument you're making. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 08:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >But then I realized that "ma'avirin es roa' hegezeirah" doesn't promise : >a repeal of the gezeirah. Rather, the gezeirah comes to pass, but one : >passes through (avoids? is sheileded from?) the tragic aspect of it. : Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of : the decree that is caused to pass; not us. And in terms of Purim, : while the gezera was not prevented, its roa certainly was, by the : second gezera, the one permitting us to fight back. The "And in terms..." was exactly my point. I thought the difference between what Acheshveirosh's words are being used to say about the Melekh (in Chazal's subtext to Esther) and what we're saying on Yamim Noraim is whether the gezeira could change. The megillah says "... venechtam betabaas ha[M]elekh ein lehashiv", whereas we are saying "maavirin." "But then I realized" that it's more about the outcome of the gezeira. Thus explaining the notion of chasimah. It also explains the value of mid-year teshuvah even despite the chasimah. The gezeirah neednt be overturned in order to have an entirely new outcome. So I think we're in agreement, I just wasn't clear enough about where the hava amina ended and the masqana began. But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 07:26:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure > not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, > we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, > even in lekhat-chilah cases. We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that cannot be perceived with unaided human senses. I've had pots come out of the dishwasher that still have an odor of what was cooked in them. That's perceptable. I've never experienced that with glass (real glass) or stainless steel. For that matter, I've never experienced it with flexible silicon, either. But I have with other metals, with Pyrex, with china, and with tupperware type plastics. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:33:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:33:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] wanting vengeance Message-ID: <000201d21fef$70eed1f0$52cc75d0$@actcom.net.il> See Hizkuni on Viyikra 19:18, first dibbur hamat'hil. He seems to be saying that revenge as such is not intrinsically problematic; the problem is that it consumes the person. Perhaps he is also implying that it sets up a vicious circle, but that might just be me expanding on his idea. (The rest of the piece is kind of interesting too, but only the first d"h is relevant to the discussion of vengeance.) The Hizkuni can be found in the Mossad HaRav Kook Torat Haim edition of Humash. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 11:06:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:06:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/6/2016 6:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I know it goes against modern cultural mores, but being able to see > : God take vengeance on one's enemies can be a great comfort. I know > : that we're supposed to say "I want justice; not vengeance", but the > : Torah is pretty clear that wanting vengeance is natural, and not to > : be condemned... > > What about the Rambam, Dei'os 7:7, that I cited WRT whether neqimah > is only a problem WRT ".... es benei amekha"? > Ra'ui lo le'adam liyhos ma'vir al midosav > al kol divrei ha'olam. > Shehakol eitzel hamevinim divrei hevel vehavai. > Ve'einan kedai linqom aleihem. > > It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth > neqamah. WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an individual to let things go. Though note also that he doesn't say it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:44:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah Message-ID: <2dce3dc856b0475c918be6cb1fbc342b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Except that the haavara is of the roa hagezeira. It is the evil of the decree that is caused to pass; not us. Rabbi Nosson Rich in a shiur found here http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862406/rabbi-nosson-rich/mishna-berura-yomi-hilchos-rosh-hashana-584-2/ Rabbi Nosson Rich-Mishna Berura Yomi: Hilchos Rosh Hashana 584-2 explains that the term roa modifies the term haGzeira and that what we are asking is that the bad part of the decree be annulled and the positive parts of the decree remain in place Gct Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:55:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Purim and Maavirin es Roa haGezeirah In-Reply-To: <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> References: <20161005213844.GE14831@aishdas.org> <30d7481c-a1a2-ad7e-3d66-288d37c38110@starways.net> <20161006155635.GE12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <743a0d9b-5555-6882-03df-9ad93a926e0e@starways.net> On 10/6/2016 6:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But I don't understand your diqduq point. The "es" means that "roa > hagezeirah" is the object of the statement. So one passes through the > tragedy of the decree. What was my mistake? When you use the word "pass", and we're using the Hebrew "maavir", it seems as if you're connecting the two. That's incorrect. It's the roa that's being caused to pass. Not us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 09:17:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: <20161005210707.GD3664@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006161734.GB22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:26:45PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 10/6/2016 12:07 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >In any case, beli'ah could never be guaranteed to be zero. Knowing for sure : >not even one cell remains from the meat that was last in the pot??? So yeah, : >we really are talking about getting the beli'ah down to ignorable levels, : >even in lekhat-chilah cases. : : We don't care about a cell. We don't care about anything that : cannot be perceived with unaided human senses.... Yes, which was why I used a cell to illustrate what I mean by obiously ignorable levels. Since the pot isn't stained be'ein, beli'ah is also imperceptible by human senses, though. Can't be seen, smelled, tasted nor felt. (Nor heard nor detectible by proprioception, for that matter.) To my mind, the whole issue of beli'ah vs bitul is about the definition of ignorable. Where indvidual cells and other obviously imperceptibles don't exist, but other things I would have considered imprerceptible is. And not only do we count beli'ah, we worry it might be nearly the same volume as the keli itself! It was for this reason that in prior iterations I floated the idea that nosein ta'am had more to do with intangible ta'am -- c.f. ta'am hamitzvah -- than literal tongue sensation of molecules. Although, if the kefeilah can taste the food, of course there is cognitive taam as well. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:19:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 19:19:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parameters of Pas Paltur In-Reply-To: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <57f6958861c4f_2571190220172810af@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1475781541135.92126@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 2:18 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: The Parameters of Pas Paltur We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products We know that Pas Paltur, Baker's Bread is permitted year round. Yet, During the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one should ensure that all one's bread products are strictly Pas Yisroel. But which items fit this category? Pasta? Doughnuts? Noodles? And what about cereal? Can I give my kids Cheerios this week? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Parameters of Pas Paltur" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:47:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] N'kom L'aynaynu In-Reply-To: References: <20161005151403.GA22978@aishdas.org> <129737e4-b24c-d0f4-4df9-aff18387aa16@starways.net> <20161006154501.GD12005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161006194746.GC22128@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:06:39PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> It does appear that a wise person doesn't think anything is worth :> neqamah. : WADR, I don't see how that Rambam is relevant at all to n'kom : l'eineinu. Rambam raui lo *l'adam*. That it's good midot for an : individual to let things go... Ma'vir al midosav -- "letting things go" means not needing Hashem to enact revenge on my behalf either, no? : it's assur not to. But we're talking about the tzibbur. And when : our tzibbur is oppressed, that calls for vengeance. Public : vengeance. Because it's a chillul Hashem for His people to be : oppressed, so it requires a public vengeance to repair it. As I put it it: no revenge qua revenge, but to show the world yeish din, veyeish Dayan. And thus... "neqom *le'eineinu*". There's isn't a similar notion of an iqur emunah that "yeish Noqeim". And as the Rambam said, wanting neqamah may be permissible, but it's petty and we should aim higher, when we can. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 12:23:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:23:26 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Piquax Nefesh When Someone Endangers His Own Life In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 6, 2016 07:31:11 am Message-ID: <1475778206.B05dBa7F0.11634@m5.shachter> > .... He gave the example of someone in mortal danger who refuses to > eat [on Yom Kippur] unless a minyan of Jews eats along with him. In > this situation the entire minyan is allowed to eat. Allowed to eat, or required to eat? And we are talking about eating more than the shi`ur that triggers the issur kareth, yes? Even if it is only "allowed", it is a problematic halakha. If a man refuses to eat, to the point where he is near death, unless a woman has sexual relations with him -- and the doctors agree that he will die unless she complies -- she is not allowed to have sexual relations with him outside of marriage; she is not even required to speak to him from behind a wall. We say, Let him die. How do we understand the difference between these two rulings? Eating on Yom Kipper is an issur kareth; sexual intercourse outside of marriage, if the laws of Nidda are observed, is at worst an issur lav, and, according to many Rishonim, not even that. Clearly, despite our talk about the infinite value of human life, there are other considerations at work here. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:32:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu bechokhmah uveminyan. 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the truth is din. Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. ROY (intro to Halikhos Olam) cites R' Chaim Volozhiner (shu"t Chut haMeshulash #9, Ruach haChaim on Avos 4:4) as invoking this gemara to explain why RCV didn't follow all of the Gra's pesaqim. This (2:1) stands in contrast to (eg) the Tur and Beis Yoseif CM 25, who limit even overturning a ga'on's rulingt "ela bequshya mefursemes, vezehu davar she'enah nimtzah". The Tur (citing the Rosh) considers overturning pisqei ge'onim to be to'eh bidvar mitzvah. See also the Mechaber, in Kesef Mishnah on 2:1. R Chaim Brisker, who holds that later eras are in theory empowered to overturn earlier pesaqim, but we refuse to excercise that power out of kavod, would apparently hold like the Rambam. (No surprise, there.) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's : acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that : a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the : Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. : But RMH himself wrote, : : ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the : multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in : the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. : Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to : the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the : Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or : more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, : whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve disputes raised by the sages". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 14:11:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chronology: Aruch Hashulchan and Mishne Brurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006211131.GA25747@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:37:09PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : My reason for citing all this is as follows: RMB claims that "the MB was : written before AhS OC", but that is not accurate. The list does prove that : the AhS on Hilchos Shabbos was written after the MB on Hilchos Shabbos. MB publication dates (acc "The Chafetz Chaim", pg 603, by R Moshe M Yoshor): vol 4: 1884 vol 1: 1886 vol 2: 1891 vol 3: 1898 vol 5: 1902 vol 6: 1906 (19 Marcheshvan 5667, 7 Nov) So, that would give the AhS a 22 year window in which to complete OC while still finishing first. The AhS was published qunterus by qunterus, and collected into book-length volumes by his daughter. The qunterusin came out from 1884-1893. So, some of the AhS did come out after the MB. Perhaps even some of its OC. RYH cited himself (Benei Banim 2:8) in an earlier iteration. He said his grandfather RYEHenkin held the AhS was the more authoritative seifer of pesaq, giving a number of reasons. One was that nearly all of the AhS post-dates the MB. Which is really all I meant. I just didn't bother with the "nearly all" for what was a tangent. BTW, RYEH's other reasons: 2- The AhS will cite the MB before giving his own pesaq when he knows he is being choleiq. 3- It covers the entire SA. (Again, "nearly all".) 4- He takes accepted practice into account. 5- RYME was a practicing rav, who had a qehillah and more hands-on experience in halakhah lemaaseh. (Interestingly, he does not cite RSMandel's reason: The MB tells you what it's for -- to help posqim who might not own all the latest acharonim. The CC doesn't say he is out to provide pesaq itself.) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 6 13:38:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers right In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161006203826.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said : that if can only buy one : of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems : to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups : to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed? Is this a call to start one? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 03:12:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:12:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of doubt in the past. In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of life are opened etc. I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:46:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007144651.GA5960@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:12:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH... : I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for different : types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day RH and : during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. A strict rationalist would say that any time set of teshuvah is inherently a time for judgment. Rather than the other way around. After all, a person who knows that these 10 days are "the right time" for teshuvah and doesn't use it, or *how* he choose to use it, says much about where he is and where he is going. Much more than the rest of the year. : Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of the : rabbis can effect heavenly judgement Well, that last question is true for the first day too. After all, it's up to the Jewish People to decide when rosh chodesh is, when the year is me'uberes, etc... So even the judgment of the first day is timed by taqanos of the rabbis. This same question comes up WRT shemittah -- does shemittah derabbanan come with a berakhah in the 6th and 8th years? And the CI's teshuvah prohibiting heter mechirah assumes it does. We have discussed this repeatedly. And see also http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan Or WRT whether chicken parmesan causes timtum haleiv. The Meshech Chokhmah says no -- only deOraisos reflect how the universe was made. Which is why we can say safeiq derabbanan lehaqeil. R Elchanan Wasseman disagrees. And the SA haRav has a position more like your context. He says that YT sheini shel galios is a connection to the very same supernal and lemaalah min hazeman of the holiday as the first day is. It's the nature of the connection to the metaphysical reality that differs, not what is being connected to. REED (MmE 2:74-77) appears to be saying something similar. That in EY and at certain times, we have less need to connect to dina rafuya, and so we only have the dina qushya of the first day. After all, dina rafuya is more necessary when one stands in judgment as a yachid. If the needs the services of a condemnded man, he will be brought back from the gallows. But Jewish society in EY places one firmly within the tzibbur, both current and historical. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 08:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] workers righs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007150309.GC5960@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:35:26AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : From this tiny snippet, I can only guess what the CC's reasoning might have : been, and that guess is along the lines of "It is better to be a m'tzuveh : v'oseh, but if you pay before the wages are due then you'll be merely an : aino m'tzuveh v'oseh." Well, I don't think it's an eino metzuveh ve'osah, even. If one pays immediately after the job is completed, one is fulfilling both the mitzvah of keeping one's word (hin / "hein" tzedeq) and lo salin. If one pays before then, even if that's the contract, one loses lo salin. But of course, if that is the contract, hein tzedeq would trump the creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin. I assume you are also concerned with the worker who really needs the money. In which case, I don't know if the CC would also recommend creating an opportunity to fulfill lo salin trumps giving tzedaqah when the guy really needs it. I too need to see inside; my inclination is to deminish the implication to "all else being equal" situations. : While this logic may be valid technically, it is hard for me to imagine : that the Chofetz Chaim would advise us to do a mitzvah in a way that gives : the employer more s'char, rather than doing it in the way that the employee : prefers. I dunno... I think it's leshitaso. The CC has a very deontological (morality as rule-obedience) view of morality, and you're thinking consequentialist. Remember, we're talking about the first rav who thought it necessary to pin down hilkhos shemiras halashon into a codified format. Until then, we were apparently happy enough with a moral do-what's-obviously-right approach. Remember also his pesaq (CC part I, 4:12) WRT asking mechilah for something the person doesn't know you spoke LH about him, and will be hurt by finding out. The CC held he should; RYS was so against this 1 pesaq, he wouldn't give a hasqamah to the entire book! GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 07:50:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007145039.GB5960@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag : of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev : except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before : eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by : the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar : and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all : tafel to it. >>> I am reminded on RYBS's explanation of the Brisker shitah of sitting for havdalah. They see the 3 se'udos and havdalah as one extended shulchan Shabbos. And since one sits for qiddush (Vayekhulu aside), it closes with one being seated as well. Perhaps the whole Sukkos is one trip to the Sukkah, just as there is one Shabbos table. With the se'udos being highlights. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 10:51:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007175109.GA31101@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger and I keep writing in this thread, but there seems to be a : communications problem... We therefore took the conversation off-list for a bit. Judging from RAM's response to my last email, I think I figured out how to formulate what I am trying to say in a way that is comprehensible. So, I would like to share it here. Kefeilah alone is an insufficient criterion to determine whether or not a keli has a ta'am. There is also shishim. Machloqes rishonim, about what the rule of kefeilah means: 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so weakened, it's not real ta'am.) (The above is from earlier in this self-same thread -- but all the way back on Sep 12th. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n112.shtml#11 ) So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. [RAM, offlist,] wrote something about middos vs halakhah. FWIW, you're talking to someone who believes that the iqar of halakhah is to be a set of mussar exercises. To quote R' Shimon: Yisbarakh HaBorei, Veyis'alah haYotzeir [note the rashei teivos] who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" vechayei olam nata besocheinu so that our greatest desire would be to benefit others individuals and the community now and in the future in the likeness of the Borei, kaveyachol "Vechayei olam nata besocheinu" -- i.e. gave us the Torah (c.f. Birkhas haTorah), "so that our greatest desire would be to benefi others" -- mussar, no? It requires serious mysticism to believe the mitzvos work through a means other than their impact on experience. And even within mysticism, according to the Nefesh haChaim (this is a big part of cheileq 1), their impact in higher olamos is via the impact on experience and the soul of the person doing them. After all, it's only the human soul that is betzelem E-lokim and combines kochos from all the olamos; it's the only conduit from actions in this world to higher ones. And given that central role of experience, then we can continue using Aristo's common-sensical Natural Philosophy even thought our brains know that experiments and science describe objective reality better. Because even practiced baseball players in the field run to get under the ball, and then slowly correct for the parabolic trajectory the ball actually follows. And if most people will talk themselves into tasting something that doesn't really have a taste, then it has ta'am. As long as the psyche connects the pot to meat, or halakhah believes that someone with the right sensitivities would. GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 7 11:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:14:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : 1) Mechaber 583:1 says that when eating the rubia on RH night, one says < : YH"R sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > : : 2) Mishneh Berurah 583:2 cites "Beis Yosef and other poskim", that the full : text is < Yehi ratzon milfanecha D' EV"A sheyirbu zechuyosaynu. > And skipping ahead a bit: : After writing the above, I looked at the Beis Yosef that the Mishne Brurah : had referred to. It is in siman 583, "Umah shekasav Rubia". It is : interesting to note that (in my edition) he uses a different abbreviation : than the Mishne Brurah used, namely: < YRM"Y EV"A > One could argue that : the Mishna Brurah's use of a Dalet suggests that indeed one might say the : two-syllable "Hashem", but it is pretty obvious to me that the Beis Yosef's : use of a Yud refers to the three-syllable "Ado---". And in between: : I thought that this Mishne Brurah was clear evidence that the shaymos : should be pronounced properly, but he was not convinced, and pointed to the : Mishneh Brurah's use of the abbreviations as ambiguous. All three purport to be the position of the same person. I would therefore assume that the publisher's choice of "Yehi Ratzon milfanekha D' EV"A" in the MB means the same thing as the Tur publisher's choice of "YRM"Y EV"A". And I would assume the publisher of the SA really meant "YH"R ... sheyirbu zekhuyoseinu". Like the way other places in the SA have "Barukh ... asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" and leave the insertion of sheim Hashem implied. Which is only possible if the SA's and MB's publishers were actually avoiding a real sheim. The only likely road (the only 1 managed to find) breaking your ambiguity. So I would conclude that the mechaber actually expected use of the sheim, as per the MB. Touching on the actual RH question for a moment... I could see making a distinction between the Yehi ratzon on a siman that dates back to Chazal, and that made on a later siman -- apple-n-honey, carrots, or lettuce - half-a-raisin - celeray. ... : I perceive a Catch-22, and I'd like comments on it. On the one hand, if one : says "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" to avoid saying it the correct way, doesn't : that make a farce of the whole minhag? And on the other hand, if one argues : that "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" ARE valid Shaymos, then what is gained by : pronouncing them that way? There are really three categories: the official sheimos used in Tanakh, other names of G-d, and kinuyim. Didn't this happen historically? First there was the three yud kinui, in a triangle, which (in response to abuse by trinitarians) became two yuds. Then two yuds became too much like a sheim rather than a kinui, so we switched to using H' or 4'. Kinui inflation. In the days of rishonim (the 2"y" era), "hasheim" refered to G-d's reputation, not G-d himself. E.g. in the Rambam, you'll find "qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim", but never /Hei-shin-mem/ to refer to G-d. One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon at .) I ended up deciding that while writing "G-d" may indeed be unnecessary, investing effort to unlearn the habit was lese-Majeste. That could be wrong. I am just reporting what feels like kibud to me. But if it is valid, perhaps we could say the same. "Hashem" goes from being a kinui to a Judeo-English name of G-d when usual practice is to write "Hash-m" rather than write it out. You know poeople are using it like a name when it feels more natural to treat it like one. And if people need to place effort into treating it like a kinui, they shouldn't. But again, no meqoros to that; just what feels right from first principles. BTW, if it wouldn't look even weirder than my qufs, I would translaterate it as "" like " ben ". After all, it's really an instruction to the reader or listener, "" like . Or: Blessed are you _______ our G-d... (name) GCT and :-)@@ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 08:08:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 18:08:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins. He gives the xample of someone who is not willing to give up shaving with a razor. Then G-d does not purify him from his sins. Each sin is connected to a limb in the body and this person is "missing" some sin and so he is not forgiven for his sins until he accepts all mitzvot. This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure the greatest level is when a person completely changes his personality. However, that is too difficult for most people and therefore they should strive to improve in one area of their lives, i.e. take on a "new years resolution" that this year I will be more careful about saying brachot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 17:24:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:24:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> On 10/6/2016 4:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Rambam, on when halakhah can be overturned, from Mamrim 2: > 2:1- A law made by derashah, ANY later beis din can overturn. "veDan > kefi mah shenir'eh be'einav." > 2:2- A gezeirah, zaqanah or minhag requires a beis din hagadol mimnu > bechokhmah uveminyan. > 3:2- A siyag cannot be overturned at all. > The contrast betwen halakhah 1 vs 2 & 2 is due to the Rambam's > Accumulative model. Legislation is a matter of legal authority of the > BD that made the new law. But interpretation of existing law is a > matter of correctly understanding the Torah or the legislating BD. > So, whatever the "shofeit asher yihyeh beyamim haheim" thinks is the > truth is din. > Which I presume is because he holds like BB 130b-131a. --the mekor Rav Hai Gaon cites in advocating for this view. > ... On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:26:21PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah > wrote: [DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL At the end of your second response, you wrote, > in a Constitutive system [attributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs > Rambam who is said to hold the ''Accumulative'' system], whatever > shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the > forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess > bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim > Chaim that is the new din. > With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities to > second-guess those conclusions.] > ZL: >: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's >: acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that >: a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the >: Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power. And now I add, I don't see why holding that Hashem told Moshe to transmit opposite verdicts, between which future sages were to choose, would entail opposing the Rambam's view about the power of later authorities to second-guess the conclusions of earlier ones. On the contrary: If, as alleged, the Ran holds the decision is not based on anchorage to an original intent, that would seem to give plenty leeway for sages to disagree with the conclusions of an earlier generation. > :ZL: ...RMH himself wrote, :...it is the court that > constitutes this meaning out of the multiplicity of given > options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the > Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial. > Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to > the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the > Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or > more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions, > whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite. > RMB: This is not an example of overturning a conclusion, but closing > a question they left open. As he translates the Ran "to resolve > disputes raised by the sages". Let me break up the Ran's wording into three parts: And He transmitted to him a rule through which the truth will be known, and that is, ''acharei rabbim l'hatos,'' and similarly, ''lo sasur min hadavar asher yahid lach.'' And when machlokess increased among the chachamim, if it was and individual against a multitude, they would establish the halacha as the words of the majority; and a multitude against a multitude, or an individual against an individual, as seen by the sages of that generation. For the decision was handed over to them, as it says, ''And you shall come to...the judge that will be in those days...and they will tell you the verdict,'' and similarly, "lo tasur." Behold [this means] that He gave permission to the sages of the generations to decide between opinions in machlokess of the sages according to how it seems to them. And even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or otherwise, and this is made clear in many places. It's true that in the first part he is specifically speaking of where the sages are not opposing a past majority opinion. But, especially in view of the third part, I see the second part as abstracting the principal to broaden its application, acting as a segue to the last part, which then expands it even further, to allow them to side againsta majority of the past ''even if those who preceded them were greater than them and more numerous than them, for such it is that we were commanded to follow that consensus of the sages of the generations who will agree to the truth or its opposite.'' I.e. the Ran is saying that the principal behind the permission given to the sages of each generation to follow their own reasoning to decide between open questions, entails their ability to disagree even with the conclusions reached by the majority of sages in the previous generation. If the Ran was still speaking of merely deciding issues disputed by two multitudes,why would the circumstance that the sages of either side were greater or more numerous than they, require their being given permission to resolve that question? And what would one think instead? That they are not allowed to address and resolve the question? Zvi Lampel ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? 96 ?. ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??? ??????. ????? 97 ?: ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? 98 ?? [Email #2] RMB: The difference between these two models is more whether: 1- G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to created new positions than then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din. IOW, how do we understand "peirush" -- is it a tool for posqim to use > to invent new halakhah, or something inherent in the Torah for posqim > to discover? ZL: To my mind this is not a matter of either/or. As I see it, all hold that analysis of pesukim to reach a ''Peirush'' thereof is a tool for poskim to use to discover ''new'' halachos that were inherent in the Torah for them to discover. When Chazal-poskim did not have extant data from predecessors sourced to Sinai that explicitly addressed a situation (remember, Rambam begins his Mishnah commentary stating that Moshe received and transmitted every detail of performance for every mitzva), they looked to statements from them from which they could decipher the correct halacha. They also utilized drashos of pesukim and a tool with which to extract and thereby discover halachic details inherent in those pesukim (because they were so encoded in them by Hashem, who also provided the methods of drash). > > : 1) Together with every mitzvah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave to > Moshe : Rabbeynu, He gave its payrush... and everything included in > the : posuk... This is the meaning of the statement, "The general > principles, : the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah > were spoken on : Sinai" (Sifra, Vayikra 25:1)," namely, that those > matters which may : be extracted through the interpretive rule of > "the general reference : written in the Torah followed by a > particular reference," or through : any of the other interpretive > rules, "were received by us through Moshe : [who received them from > God] on Sinai." > > Rambam here tells you that by "peirush" he means the former -- we > received through Moshe the interprative rules for creating the > particulars. Technically, in this passage (as opposed to the one in Shoresh Shayni of Sefer HaMitzvos, about Osniel ben Kenaz) the Rambam is speaking of drashos found to support already known details that were known to have been explicated by Hashem. But if you merely mean to say by extension that when these rules, having been given at Sinai, are used to generate details no longer extant, the results have Hashem's imprimatur, then I agree. But again I go a step further and say they were rightly confident,successfully reconstructed the originally intended detail accurately ( just as the sages were confident that Osniel ben Kenaz was successful in accurately retrieving the new mitzva-details originally generated while Moshe Rabbeynu was alive, but which became lost upon his death). > He could equally as well be saying the latter definition [of > "peirush" --... something inherent in the Torah for posqim to > discover], except that this would require ignoring how the Rambam > himself says machloqes works. I don't see how Rambam's explanation of how machlokess works is at odds with the fact that the sages saw the peirushim of pesukim as being inherent in the Torah's pesukim.--even if you look at the ''anafim'' to which the Rambam restricts machlokess, as new requirements in ideally performing mitzvos, or in assigning halachic status to people or objects. But anyway, machlokos are also about what the original way mitzvos were meant to be performed, whose protagonists rally proofs from pesukim not as to a preferable way to perform a mitzva, but as to the only way. Now, the latter case brings up a problem, a solution to which bears seriously on the Rambam's shittah about loss of oral laws Hashem stated at Sinai. There is a machlokess Tannaim over whether the minimum size of a sukkah is 4 amos square or 6x6 tefachim or 7x7 tefachim. Yet the Rambam says that Hashem told Moshe explicitly exactly how to perform every single mitzva. (He uses Ayin Tachas Ayin never meaning anything beyond monetary compensation as an example: that pri etz hadar meant an esrog never was an optional matter. And in using Sukkah as an example, he lists not only the laws that women, children, sick or travelers are exempt, but also the minimum and maximum dimensions. And he states categorically that one of the things Hashem told Moshe was that the minimum area of a sukka is 7x7. Now, if it is a machlokess, how can the Rambam assert that Hashem told Moshe the answer, and that this answer was transmitted just as was the identity of pri etz haddar? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Rambam holds that 1. Hashem told Moshe the minimum shiur; 2. That shiur was somehow lost; 3. the darkei pesak are so efficient in discovering the original intent that by applying them we can confidently conclude what the original intent was, and 4.the way machlokess works is that whereas no one would question whatever was extant from Sinai, the anafim over which there can be machlokoss include facts that were told at Sinai but for whatever reason were lost. > Skipping ahead to where you address that: : One must strive to get a > complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's : position, and not stop at > some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further : qualifications... > > Except here there are no further qualifications. You are arguing from > example, not contrary explanation. [Frm email #2: You are arguing > that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said, because there are > counter-examples in specific dinim.] I had asked what I said that you're referring to, and I still don't have an answer. Where or what is ''here,'' for which there are no further qualifications? Please quote my words that are arguing from example vs explanation, where I'm arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said because there are counter-examples in specific dinim. What I wrote immediately preceding "One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further qualifications..." was: A complete reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly corresponding to the original intent. The Ramban aon Devarim 17:11 and Drashos HaRan 11 are clearly explanatory and over-arching, not examples in specific dinim. If, on the other hand, you were skipping back to my citing of Rambam on shofar, just one of four citations I brought to prove my point, let me know, and I'll explain why even if the shofar citation were taken independently of the other three citations, I believe your objection is not valid. > At most it would show that the broad statement might be a rule that > yet has exceptions. (Eg the cases where the SA doesn't follow his > self-declared "beis din".) There is also the possibility that what looks like an exception to the rule is really an indication that one should reexamine the rule to see if he possibly misunderstood it. He may then find that the rule correctly understood works wonderfully without exceptions. [email 2:Mashal: > The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. [It means t]hat G-d > giving the kelalei hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were > subjevt to pesaq over the millenia!) does not mean He gave every > conclusion, and therefore that both tzadadim could be right. Not only the Rambam, but the rishonim (R. Nissim Gerondi in Drashos HaRan and the Ritva) to whom the essay attributes the ''Constitutional View'' as well, do not say that Moshe's not being directly told which side of a machlokess to teach means that both sides are right. The Ran is most explicit that only one side could be right, and the Ritva makes no statement about correctness. Both explicitly reject the idea that opposite conclusions can both be true. This does not contradict the fact that all opinions formed during the process of striving to ascertain the correct applications of the halachic factors to a given situation, even those conclusions that are incorrect, form bona fide limud Torah, and in that sense are divrei E-okim Chaim (a typical approach by rishonim and acharonim to avoid the impossiblity that Hashem would have given Moshe contradicting halachos). > The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean > Logic. > > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the > conclusions, even though they contradict. Choosing not to > reinterpret the gemaros -- "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim > tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of > Non-Contradiction. If it were true, this would be an argument from silence. But it's not even true. Rashi, Tosefos, and the Ran (and later, Maharshal, Maharal, R. Yisroel Salanter, R. Yitchak Hutner, R. Gedlaiah Schorr) qualify such statements in ways that avoid transgressing the law of non-contradiction. So who are the rov rishonim who do not? ... > Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that > an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority > is only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and > who can repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law. > > Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could > give more authority to one valid shitah or the other. I don't understand this sentence. : to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed : strongly-expressed verbiage... > My real problem here is that you're calling for an esoteric > interpretation,that the rishonim quoted didn't really mean what they > said. Chas V'chalilah!!I utterly oppose that nonsense, and made that clear in past posts. As you write, > If the Rambam doesn't mean what the book says, we should just drop > any any attempt to determine what he really did hold. This ways lies > non-O academic understandings of the Moreh and other such shtuyot; > the methodology is useless. The esoteric interpretation claims that Maimonides shrewdly said things he disbelieved. I'm advocating taking a rishon at his word, and furthermore getting a thorough and complete picture of a rishon's shittah, and against (a) focusing on one broadly-sounding statement and ignoring others (broadly stated or otherwise) that temper and clarify the rishon's position, and (b) treating the rishon as if he is oblivious to reason and/or to talmudic passages even if he may not mention them. > > Jumping back for a bit: : 3) Temura states "1,700 kal vachomers and > gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei : soferim became forgotten during the > days of mourning for Moshe, but : even so, Othniel ben Kenaz > retrieved them through his pilpul... > > The difference being, that in an Accumulative system, Osniel ben > Kenaz could hypothetically have been *wrong*; BH he wasn't. There > was a particular shitah that was made din, and he managed to retrieve > it. Whereas in a Constitutive system, whatever shitah he justifies > would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim that is the new > din. Again, the Drashos HaRan (to whom is attributed the Constitutive system) emphatically holds that as a rule the analysis produces the emes (Drash 11). And the Rambam (to whom is attributed the ''Accumulative'' system) also holds that the conclusion of the Bes Din is the version of divrei E-okim Chaim that is the new din. How do we know Osniel ben Kenaz wasn't wrong? Because the nation and Chazal recognized as flawless the results of the methodology, in the hands of experts such as he. (See above regarding the minimum shiur of a sukkah.) [Email #3] RMH and ''Constitutional'' system vs. ''Accumulative'' system RMH writes, ...unlike Maimonides who claimed that controversy begins with the introduction of the human component in the creation of halakhah, both Ritba and Nissim Gerondi describe controversy as rooted in the very structure of revelation. The body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and final ... but rather open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court in each generation to constitute the norm. It is not clear that the Ran (R. Nissim Gerondi) holds that after Hashem ''showed'' him the future sages having their disputes, ''Moses passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge'' in the sense of explicitly transmitting opposing conclusions between which the future sages would pick. Here is part of the Drashos HaRan: Since the words of those who declare something tameiand those who declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any doubts as to what the Truth is?! ^But the answer is that G-d [Himself] commanded us to follow the Sages .... [A]nd we must also believe that if the Sages should agree to the opposite of the Truth-and we could know this through a Bas Kol or a prophet-it is still improper to veer away from their consensus (No. 5). Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed [intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is tamei is] tahor, so what?! Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ? How could the nature of that thing change itself just because of the Sages' consensus that it is permitted? This is impossible short of a miracle. It would therefore seem that we preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. For in the majority of cases this will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct decision.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. Furthermore, I feel that it is really impossible for any harm at all to come to one's soul by following the Sanhedrins decision ... [F]or the benefit which the soul receives through [its submissiveness to] the Sages' decisions and decrees-that is the thing which is most beloved by Hashem .... One's following their counsel and one's submission to their words will remove from his soul all the harm produced by eating the forbidden thing [which the Sages mistakenly permitted]. This is why the Torah commanded us, "You shall not turn aside from the thing they tell you, right or left," [upon which the Tradition comments, even if they tell you that Right is Left] (Drash 11). The only difference between the Ran and the Rambam is that the Ran speaks directly about the Gemora that states that Hashem showed Moshe the future machlokos without explicitly telling him the correct pesak. Rambam is silent on that passage. But whether the Rambam takes it literally or as a poetic way of saying that Hashem left some matters to be solved by applying the interpretation rules, he and the Ran are in agreement as to the basics. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam begin their description of the appearance of machlokess over mitzvah performance with the broad statement that Hashem taught Moshe the entire oral law. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam then go on to relegate the issues of machlokess to anafim or details that had to be defined in order to address circumstances the extant information did not directly address. ?The Ran, even more explicitly than the Rambam, maintains that only one side of future machlokos represents the truth and Hashem's original intent. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam maintain that the interpretation rules Hashem gave Moshe, and which Moshe transmitted to the nation would, if accurately applied, determine which side of future machlokosin is correct. ?Both the Ran and the Rambam agree that Hashem wants us to follow the results of analysis using the methodologies he prescribed as can be comprehended through human comprehension, even in the rare instances where this may be at odds with what can be known through prophecy or bas kol. The Drashos HaRan (Drash 7) refers to the majority rule as a means to uncover an originally intended true side of a machlokess. Regarding the halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages, he states, Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution, every controversy in detail. But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. This contradicts the idea that the Ran differs with the Rambam's view that the sages were invested in recovering an original intent. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 09:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:10:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 6:08 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva > to a mikvah. He argues that just like a mikvah if part of the body is > outside the water then nothing is purified so too with teshuva if a > person isn't willing to ask for forgiveness for one sin then G-d > doesn't grant forgiveness for all the other sins.... > This goes against everything I have learned. I was always taught that > the ordinary person should work on improving himself in one area. Sure > the greatest level is when a person completely changes his > personality... I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, that's a whole other thing. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 11:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:15:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I haven't heard what ROY said exactly, but just as a thought exercise, I'd > assume he means that if someone says "I reject this mitzvah", he can't get > forgiveness for other sins. As opposed to someone who says "I accept all > the mitzvot, and I just haven't been able to get myself to do this mitzvah." > If you say you reject a mitzvah, you're either in rebellion against God, > or you don't believe God gave the mitzvot. If you say you aren't perfect, > that's a whole other thing. The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email from the site that sends out a daily halacha in the name of ROY (I think from a grandson) gmar tov Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 12:44:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:44:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> Message-ID: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> On 10/9/2016 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The language the article uses is "kasheh lo levater" which I assume > means that it is too difficult to give up shaving with a razor. > My interpretation i a aveirah betavayon and not rebellion. > > If someone wants to see the original Hebrew I can forward that email ... Thank you to RET for sending me a copy of the text he's dealing with. It's pretty much the way I guessed. The case ROY is talking about is someone who is mekabel ol on all but one mitzvah. It's not that he doesn't do the mitzvah; it's that he refuses to view it as binding on him at all. And so when he does it, there's no possibility of shame, which could otherwise lead him to do teshuva. In the modern world, hypocrisy has become the cardinal sin of all sins. And by that perspective, if you're going to violate the mitzvah, it's better to say it's not a mitzvah at all. Because if you say it is and you violate it anyway, then you're a hypocrite. But the Torah has a different outlook, because we hold that the Torah is Truth. So it's far better to acknowledge that you're falling short of what you know you should be doing than to rebel against God and simply refuse to accept something because you don't want to do it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:25:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> References: <3e2ceaba-5168-a02c-814f-e8cf03c76002@starways.net> <7916f63e-22d8-dac7-21ca-3c1418bbdae5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161010012527.GI22689@aishdas.org> While I can't speak to ROY takes it, R' Yisrael Salanter understands the Rambam as requiring teshuvah sheleimah on any one mitzvah. Shir haShirim Rabba 5:3 famously has Hashem saying that if we were to make an opening of teshuvah the size of the head of a pin, He will open a door for us that wagons and chariots could drive through. And yet the Rambam (Teshuvah 2:2-3) requires doing full teshuvah, all four steps, to remove sin. RYS (Or Yisrael, letter #6) says that the medrash refers to doing full teshuvah for one small aveirah, something that is small in lefum tza'ara agra says -- something easy for me to fix. One becomes a baal teshuvah gamur, of that one cheit. He says that when working incrementally, one must fully do teshuvah for some one thing, then some any one thing. Rather than do a broadspread half-teshuvah for many things at once. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:07:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:07:04 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] NeKom LeAynaynu Message-ID: if we think of revenge as a blood sport, yes it is demeaning. but that is not the meaning. HKBHs standard bearers are revenge. Revenge heralds His arrival and His departure - Keil NeKomos HaShem Gem Berachos Picture this as the monstrosity on Har HaBayis is about to be demolished, either by some gigantic bulldozer or controlled explosion, we do what we always do - we hold an auction. Who buys the rights to this great event? The wealthiest oil sheik in the world And who is he MeChabed? The most hateful preacher who has incited violence and been responsible for the demise and injury of countless Yidden. And as this person is about to depress the plunger, or activate the bulldozer, he makes a declaration, I was wrong, I sinned That is true revenge That is HKBHs revenge Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:09:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] unless others sin Message-ID: the person who insists others eat on Yom Kippur otherwise he will not eat is given Petch until he agrees to eat - Kofin Osso Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:45:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. > If so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, > today is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the > books of life are opened etc. I liked all of R' Micha Berger's responses, but I would say this: It's no different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the second Seder, etc etc. Please note that I am not suggesting a particular answer here; I'm only pointing out that if you find an answer you like for one of these questions, it will probably be a good answer for the others too. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 9 18:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It's no : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the : second Seder, etc etc.... The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by the omer, not the date. And whe seder is also different than saying there is special RH kaparah, as one is talking about chiyuvim, and the other is talking about things HQBH grants. (Unless it's our chiyuv that triggers His response...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 01:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Richie via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Workers' Right Message-ID: In reading the posting on ahavas chesed and the comment regarding the popularity of groups studying shmiras lashon, it immediately occurred to me that with ahavas chesed, shmiras lashon would naturally follow. I know I've mentioned this to R' Micha before, but it bears repeating. IMHO, the quintessential individual who emulated ahavas chesed and was truly a humble and holy man was the Kapischnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehosha Heschel, zt"l. At age 14, I was at his house on Henry St. and my memory of his kindness is seared into my brain forever. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:55:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Message-ID: <20161010095525.GA30060@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Eli Turkel ----- The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach, Rav Soloveitchik and The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """""""""""""""" """ """""""""""" """ """ """"" """ """"" by Rabbi Chaim Jachter It is amongst the most difficult laws in the Torah to understand. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ceremony that is performed as part of the Yom Kippur Beit HaMikdash ritual appears primitive and brutal and even seems to run counter to basicTorah values. The notion of taking a goat and hurling it down a cliff, thereby achieving forgiveness for our sins, is difficult for us to accept. Indeed, Meforashim throughout the generations have struggled to understand the meaning behind what appears to be a peculiar ritual. However, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an eye opening explanation that reveals the profound message of this mysterious Mitzvah. Moreover, the eye opening book The Other Wes Moore brings Rav Soloveitchik's interpretation to life and helps us grasp the elusive meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach Ritual """ """"" """"""""""""""" """""" The Torah (VaYikra 16:5-10) describes the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach ritual as follows (translation from Mechon Mamre): And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. The Torah (ad loc. 21-22) continues: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. The Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) describes the scene at the mountain: "The Kohein who brought the goat to the desert tied a strip of crimson between the horns of the goat and then pushed the goat backwards down the cliff. The goat would roll down the mountain and be dismembered by the time it reached halfway down the mountain". Rav Shmuel Goldin, in his Unlocking the Torah Text: Vayikra (page 114), eloquently articulates three questions that will help us unlock the meaning of this mysterious ritual: What is the significance of the simultaneous selection of two goats? This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the Mishnaic dictate (Yoma 6:1) that the goats chosen should be as similar as possible in stature, appearance and in cost. Why are lots drawn to determine the fate of each goat? Why not simply designate without resorting to a ceremony of chance? Are the sins of the people truly transferred to the "head of the goat," as the text seems to indicate? Does the animal really become a scapegoat for our sins? Such an idea seems completely antithetical to Jewish Law and its prohibition of superstitious practice... To suggest that the Teshuva process can somehow be short-circuited through a magical act of transference of sins seems to fly in the face of all we believe. Four Classic Approaches to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- Chazal, Abarbanel, """" """"""" """""""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" "" """"""" """""""""" Rav Hirsch and Ramban """ """""" """ """""" The Gemara (Yoma 67b) lists the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach among five other examples of a Chok, a Mitzvah for which we do not have a rational explanation. Included in this list are other puzzling rituals such as Chalitzah and the Sha'atneiz prohibition. This passage in the Gemara concludes that one should not regard these Mitzvot as an exercise in nonsense, since they were commanded by Hashem in His infinite wisdom. Thus, one can simply opt out of trying to discover meaning to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach since it is a Chok. Nonetheless, Meforashim endeavor to discover a reason for this Mitzvah. Abarbanel (VaYikra 16:1-22) argues that the two goats whose appearance is very similar represent the twin brothers Ya'akov and Eisav, one of whom is chosen to serve as the ancestor of God's nation and the other destined to live a turbulent and violent existence. This ritual is conducted on Yom Kippur to remind us of our special role as descendants of Ya'akov Avinu. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 16:10) notes that on the one hand, one goat's blood reaches a more holy spot than the blood of any other Korban. On the other hand, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is sent much further outside the Beit HaMikdash than any other rejected Korban. The Torah is teaching that Hashem creates a level spiritual field in which we function. Whenever there is greater spiritual opportunity there is also a parallel greater potential for falling into a spiritual abyss. The opposite destinations of the two goats express the choice and free will that Hashem has bestowed upon us -- a core lesson of spiritual improvement central to Yom Kippur. Ramban (VaYikra 16:8) offers an incredibly bold suggestion to explain the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach: On Yom Kippur, however, Hashem commanded us that we send a goat to the wilderness, to the "force" that rules in desolate places... and under whose authority are the demons referred to by Chazal as "Mazikim" (destroyers) and in the Chumash as "Se'irim," male goats. Ramban clarifies that the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is not an independent offering to the "force" of the wilderness. The gift to the wilderness, rather, is a fulfillment of God's will, comparable to a food provided by the caterer of a banquet to a servant at the host's request. Rav Goldin (op. cit. p. 122) offers a compelling explanation of Ramban. He writes the following: "[The gift constitutes] A healthy respect for the potentially destructive forces that inhabit our inner world. We must recognize the strength of our Yeitzer Hara (base instincts) and its unerring ability to undermine all valiant attempts at self-betterment. Attempted sublimation of the Yeitzer Hara is the surest way to grant it power over our actions. Instead we must acknowledge our "adversary"; respect its strength; and then turn that strength to our benefit. Rav Soloveitchik's Approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach """ """""""""""""" """""""" "" """ """"" """"""""""""""" While these and other classic explanations of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach shed significant light and represent significant contributions to the age-old endeavor to explain this mysterious ritual, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's approach (presented in Reflections of the Rav, volume 1 chapter 4, especially page 46) appears the most satisfying and compelling. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the two male goats were identical but their fates lead them in opposite directions, as determined by chance ("Goral," the lottery) decisions entirely beyond their control. The casting of lots decreed which was to go "LaShem," to be sacrificed within the Temple, and which to "Azazeil," to be cast out of the camp of Israel, ignominiously to be destroyed. The secret of atonement is thus indicated in the ceremonious casting of the lots. It reflects the basis for the penitent's claim to forgiveness, that his moral directions were similarly influenced by forces beyond his control, that his sinning was not entirely a free and voluntary choice. Only the Almighty can evaluate the extent of human culpability in situations which are not entirely of man's making. Only God knows to what extent a man was a free agent in making his decisions. The Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is thus a psychodramatic representation of the penitent's state of mind and his emotional need. Only by entering such a plea can man be declared "not guilty." Rav Soloveitchik builds on Abarbanel's and Rav Hirsch's approaches of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach representing the two paths from which we choose in life, taking it to the next level by showing how the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses our plea for forgiveness to Hashem on Yom Kippur. While the Rav's approach does not excuse a sinner from his actions, it does offer hope and opportunity for understanding and forgiveness on the one hand, and the opportunity to improve on the other. Rav Soloveitchik's approach also fits with Ramban's idea of respecting the power of the Yeitzer HaRa, which also constitutes a basis for forgiveness on the one hand, and a basis for opportunities to improve on the other. The Other Wes Moore """ """"" """ """"" Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach is brought to life by the highly regarded work published (by Random House) in 2010, The Other Wes Moore -- One Name, Two Fates. The author summarizes the message of his book as follows: Two kids with the same name, living in the same city. One grew up to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison for felony murder. Here is the story of two boys and the journey of a generation. In December 2000, the Baltimore Sun ran a small piece about Wes Moore, a local student who had just received a Rhodes Scholarship. The same paper also ran a series of articles about four young men who had allegedly killed a police officer in a spectacularly botched armed robbery. The police were still hunting for two of the suspects who had gone on the lam, a pair of brothers. One was named Wes Moore. Wes just couldn't shake off the unsettling coincidence, or the inkling that the two shared much more than space in the same newspaper. After following the story of the robbery, the manhunt, and the trial to its conclusion, he wrote a letter to the other Wes, now a convicted murderer serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His letter tentatively asked the questions that had been haunting him: Who are you? How did this happen? That letter led to a correspondence and relationship that has lasted for several years. Over dozens of letters and prison visits, Wes discovered that the other Wes had a life not unlike his own: Both had grown up in similar neighborhoods and had difficult childhoods, both were fatherless; they'd hung out on similar corners with similar crews, and both had run into trouble with the police. At each stage of their young lives they had come across similar moments of decision, yet their choices and the people in their lives would lead them to astonishingly different destinies. Told in alternating dramatic narratives that take readers from heart-wrenching losses to moments of surprising redemption, The Other Wes Moore tells the story of a generation of boys trying to find their way in a challenging and at times, hostile world. Quality books allow one to vicariously enter and experience environments in which one would otherwise not have the opportunity to access. The intended power of The Other Wes Moore is to allow us to vicariously experience the challenges faced by those who struggle with being raised in inner city environments. From a Torah perspective, The Other Wes Moore provides a rare window of opportunity to vicariously experience the central theme and profoundly poignant power of message communicated by the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach -- two people come from nearly the same background and environment, yet one merges as a spectacular success and one as a resounding failure. While one can never excuse The Other Wes Moore for the choices he made, experiencing and understanding his background helps us at least have some compassion for his predicament. It also helps us grasp the essence of our plea on Yom Kippur for forgiveness and the opportunity for improvement and redemption. Conclusion """""""""" Far from being primitive and brutal, the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach expresses a highly sophisticated and poignant message, which touches the heart of the human condition and the fundamental moral-spiritual tension between justice and mercy. Our careful search for meaning in what at a superficial glance appears to be foolish has yielded rich and abundant fruit. The same applies for every Mitzvah. Any and every aspect of Torah and Chazal is rich with meaning and significance. Never dismiss any part of our holy Torah. If we do not grasp the full meaning of part of the Torah, we are confident that others in either the current or future generations will unravel the mystery. Our successful search to discover the meaning of the Se'ir HaMishtalei'ach helps us accept Chazal's teaching (Yoma 67b) regarding such Chukim, "Lest one argue that these Chukim are a foolish waste, therefore the Torah states [in regard to Chukim] 'Ani Hashem' (I am God); you enjoy no right to dismiss His commands." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 02:53:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:53:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [YULamdan] The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning Message-ID: <20161010095308.GA24088@aishdas.org> I assume YULamdan included this less-lomdish-than-usual piece for the same reason I am. Regardless of where you daven this Yom Kippur, there is some chance an unfamiliar face will show up on Yom Kippur. And their entire lives could be changed by whether or not we are too embarassed / lazy / busy with our own davening to say "Hello!" One of the Mussar Movements foundation stories tells of when Rav Yisrael realized he needed to start a movement, rather than continue to follow Rav Zundel's example and quietly work only on himself. Rav Yisrael was away from home and didn't have a machzor, a Yom Kippur prayer book. At one point he lost his place and needed to peer over another person's shoulder. He got shoved in response to his efforts. How dare you interrupt my concentration! At that point Rav Yisrael realized that he couldn't keep Mussar to himself and had to share it with the world. Rav Yisrael realized that when people value their own prayer more than helping someone else -- and think that's what is going to get them forgiven on Yom Kippur -- Judaism got derailed somewhere. GCT! -Micha The unforgivable sin I committed Yom Kippur morning October 10, 2016 / theyulamdan https://yulamdan.com/2016/10/10/the-unforgivable-sin-i-committed-yom-kippur-morning With my mind racing with what I would be saying in synagogue, how I will be praying, and the powerful meaning of this day, I barely noticed what was going on in the street. I rushed into synagogue thinking of ten different things at the same time. As I walked in, right when the service was about to begin, I looked around at the empty seats which would all be full once we got started, my eyes caught two young ladies sitting down, looking around with hesitation. They seemed like real outsiders; they did not know that most people don't show up at the time the morning service is called for. They seemed unsure as to whether they were in the right seat or not, why the place was not full yet, and what prayer they should be saying right now. They projected uncertainty and insecurity. My instinct pushed me to walk over to them, ask them where they are from, or if anything I can do for them. I didn't. I had hundreds of people coming to the service, sermons and comments to deliver, and my own praying to do. I can speak to them when the service is over, I told myself. They will be fine, I thought-they werenat. Twenty minutes later I looked around again, they were gone. Realizing what had happened, I started to panic. I looked again. And again. And again. But they were gone. They had left the synagogue and I never saw them again. These two young ladies, are just some of the thousands of Jews who step through our synagogues during the High Holiday season, and I was just one of the many who failed to engage them and make sure they felt welcome and at home in synagogue. This was yet another validation of the statistics showing one of four Jews leaving religion, a growing number of Jews without an affiliation, and many Jews no longer identifying as Jewish, which have been the gloomy talking points in Jewish circles ever since the Pew study of American-Jews was released in 2013. Mistakes can serve as obstacles that disparage and devitalize us; they can also serve as powerful, invigorating, and eye-opening experiences. So I decided to make the most of this horrible mistake. I spent many hours looking into the subject of inclusion and the power of greeting and had since learned that the power of inclusion, welcoming, and increased connectivity are not only socially appreciated but scientifically necessary. In study published in Psychological Science, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.full?papetoc http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/13/0956797611427921.extract lead author Dr. Eric Wesselman, a psychology professor at Purdue University, points out that:" simple eye contact is sufficient to convey inclusion. In contrast, withholding eye contact can signal exclusiona?Diary data suggest that people feel ostracized even when strangers fail to give them eye contact. Experimental data confirm that eye contact signals social inclusion, and lack of eye contact signals ostracism. Wesselman went on to [20]experiment the matter and found that people who were "looked through" as if they were thin air-even in busy and crowded areas- felt more disconnected than those who were looked at. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/06/why-you-should-say-hello-strangers-street/2141/ It is safe to say though, that we all know that others appreciate being acknowledged, smiled at, and welcomed. So why don't we do it as often as we should? A 2005 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the main reason we fail to engage with others as often as we would like to is because of our fear of rejection and that others will not be interested in engaging with us. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/1/91/ We believe that others lack interest and for that reason fail to engage them. True, some people probably do lack interest and want to be left alone --- most people don't. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201203/the-power-hello I went on to experiment on this in my own armature way. I started saying hello to people I had never met, inviting them for a Shabbat meal, or just having a small chat. No surprises here. Most people were really moved, appreciative, and receptive to those gestures. Amy Rees Anderson, points out in her Forbes article "Make Eye Contact, Smile and Say Hello," how we have all been in a situation social situation where nobody knew us. "Then some superhero a a stranger acomes up and smiles, puts out their hand and says ahello." A And just like that, the awkwardness is over." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/01/27/make-eye-contact-smile-and-say-hello http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/community-voices/article44762559.html#storylink=cpy This year, let's make an effort to be another person's superhero. As Jews, we have now been "traveling" together for more than three thousand years. We have faced our spiritual and physical utter obliteration time and again, and yet we survived. At times of distress and persecution we stand united and the strength we find in turning to each other helped us survive. However, this cannot be what brings us together. As Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom points out "If unity is to be a value it cannot be one that is sustained by the hostility of others alone." http://www.rabbisacks.org/topics/jewish-unity/ Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are great opportunities to stand up to our shared historical experience, the undeniable bond of the present, and create a bright destiny for Jewish future. Let us reach out to each other with love, friendship, and kindness. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to each other, we owe it to our history. Most importantly, we owe it to our future. Shana Tova. Published in the Jewish Journal, October 5th, 2016 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 04:56:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots Message-ID: Okay, I'm started to understand R' Micha Berger's position, from his post in 34:126, that bli'ah is not exactly the same thing as chemical or culinary flavor getting absorbed into a keli. But then, what IS it? In Avodah 34:112, he suggested that "it could be about the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself." To me, this was such a creative chidush that I dismissed it at first, but now I can see how it fits his analysis of k'feilah: > 1- BY, based on the Ramban: There is no bitul beshishim if the kefeilah > can taste it. So, you need both ratio and taste. In other words, it is batel only if there is an expectation of no taste and also an experience of no taste. > 2- Rashi: Bitul beshishim is only if the kefeilah can taste it or if > there are none available. You need ratio, confirm with taste when you can. In other words, it is preferably as above, but the expectation of no taste is sufficient alone. > 3- Ri, Rambam: There is bitul even if the proportion is greater than 1:60 > if the kefeilah cannot taste it. So you need either ratio or taste. (The > AhS explains that what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority is so > weakened, it's not real ta'am.) In other words, it is batel *either* if there is an expectation of no taste *or* an experience of no taste. > So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means > biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since > biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of > ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological taste. I think what you meant to write is that bli'ah and bitul are not tied exclusively to biological taste, because indeed, every shita has a role for shishim, a/k/a expectation of no taste. Do I agree? Well, I'm certainly persuaded that shishim can refer to "expectation". I had always understood shishim to be a "presumption", that biological taste will be detectable at higher concentrations, but not when more diluted. It is a small jump from presumption to expectation, and I'm okay with it. I'm also persuaded that shishim plays a more important role than I had realized, that some shitos allow the bitul even when the kefeila *can* taste the issur. But let's go back to the subject line, and recall that this thread is not about taaroves; it's about hechsher keilim. And this is where the idea of "expectation" has big problems. Given how porous pottery is, I certainly sympathize with a view that "expects" pottery to absorb ta'am but never fully release it. But why do they expect this even when the pottery has been glazed? My feeling is to "expect" bli'ah of glazed pottery to be similar to the bli'ah of glass. But the poskim (at least the Ashkenazi ones) has been the exact opposite: They view glass as earthenware (it's just sand, right?) and therefore unkasherable. This thread began with Rav Melamed's suggestion that modern stainless steel might be non-absorbent and thus not needing hag'alah. My question, as I posted in the beginning (and as R' Eli Turkel referenced Rav Eitam Henkin Hy"d in Avodah 34:113), was how can we assert such things, unless we compare out pots to the ancient ones? How can we claim that stainless steel is like glass, and on the other side of our mouth, claim that glaze is *not* like glass? POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Akiva Miler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:43:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/10/16 21:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : It's no > : different than how the second day of Shavuos is not the "real" Shavuos, yet > : we say in our prayers that today is when the Torah was given. Ditto for the > : second Seder, etc etc.... > The second day of Shavous is quite different than the second seder. The > second day of Shavuos is the actual anniversary of matan Torah. Shavuos > is Zeman Matan Toraseinu only in the sense that the zeman is defined by > the omer, not the date. (1) Is it? When Shavuos did not happen to be on the 6th of Sivan, did they say Zman Matan Toraseinu anyway? (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be saying ZMT at all! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasima Tova zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:14:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Are "Hashem" and "Elokaynu" valid Shaymos? In-Reply-To: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> References: <20161007183406.GB31101@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <172276ed-3dbb-8820-d70f-37008aa4d54c@gmail.com> For the purpose of shevu'os, foreign-language Names count as kinuyim. But they are different from other kinuyim, because when praying in a foreign language one must use a kinuy that serves as His proper Name in that language. If, in our language, "Hashem" is such a Name, then it would seem to have the same status as "God". Though perhaps one could argue that since it's used for the specific purpose of *not* using an actual Name, it keeps its status as "a placeholder for the Name". > One of the writers for Kollel Iyun haDaf writes "Hash-m" (or is it > "HaSh-m"?). Strikes me as "too much". OTOH, I grew up writing "G-d", > which is actually a name of the Creator that was borrowed from the > title of the Trinitarian Deity! Whereas RYBS famously held "God" was > perfectly appropriate. (See personal recollection by R/Dr Josh Backon > at .) As I have replied many times to this, RJB is making a fundamental error. The source (AFAIK) for writing "G-d" is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (or perhaps his source), who says to do this when writing letters that are eventually going to be thrown out. The concern is *not* that "God" or "adieu" are Names that must not be erased, but that since they *are* His proper names in that language, and are the proper objects of prayer in that language, it's a bizayon when they are thrown out on a dung pile. The story with RYBS was on a blackboard, not a letter. The blackboard was not going to be thrown out, at least not with the writing still on it. So IMO RYBS's point was to object to the spread of this proper practise to areas where it was by definition inapplicable. On the contrary, if one is about to throw out a letter with one of these pseudo-Names in it, or a blackboard with one of them written on it, one should davka erase it first! -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:20:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: <20161010015250.GA5831@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161010152047.GB5911@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:43:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : (2) If we were defining ZMT by its relationship to the omer then : aderaba, the Torah was given on the 51st day of the omer (yetzias : mitzrayim was on a Thursday and Matan Torah on a Shabbos), so davka : the second day would be the real ZMT, and in EY they should not be : saying ZMT at all! According to Maadanei YT, the 50 days isn't including Shavuos, but including the first day of Pesach. A day 0. 49 days - 50 "fenceposts". And as the original Pesach started at midnight, or in the daytime when we were kicked out (I do not recall which the Tos' YT says), day 0 was atypically the next day. According to the Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael ch 27) says that Hashem was ready on the 6th, but MRAH delayed the nesinah to the 7th. And thus mitzido, the zeman was on the 6th. Yom *ha*Shishi, as Rashi notes on Bereshis 1. The MA connects Moshe's added day to YT sheini shel golios! The Brisker Rav says that the 6th is thus zeman matan Toraseinu, the 7th was the anniversary of qabbalas haTorah. Unlike what I said, but w/out touching my point. But in any case, yes... this question is asked. Still, my point was that Yom Shavuos Sheini shel Golios is unlike other YT sheini, as it's the only case where the historical event is actually on the latter date (according to the Tur and SA, who understand th halakhah as being based on R Yosi). And thus it's harder to understand where YT rishon comes from than the qedushas hayom of the 2nd day. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 07:57:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 2 days RH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/10/16 06:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We keep today 2 days RH even in EY basically for historical reasons of > doubt in the past. For the same reasons as we do in chu"l every yomtov. Until the fixed calendar was established, all of EY outside Y'm was like chu"l for RH. The difference between RH and other yomim tovim was in Y'm, where on most years they only kept one day, but on the rare occasion when they kept two it was not misafek, but as a takanas chachamim, i.e. the first day was vadai midrabanan, and the second day vadai mid'oraisa (the reverse of our situation today). That is the origin of the "yoma arichta" concept. Nowadays really every yomtov is "yoma arichta" in this sense, because both days are vadai yomtov, but we act as if there were a safek, because the takana is to do what our ancestors did, and they had a safek. On RH sometimes even our ancestors (i.e. the ones in Y'm) had no safek, so we don't pretend that we have one. > In fact the Baal Hamaor claims that there were > periods of time in the early middle ages where only day of RH was kept > in EY since we now have a permanent calendar Yes, but who says they were right to do so? Or, looking at it another way, by definition they were right to do so because at the time those who paskened that way were the local majority, but now that the local (and global) majority paskens otherwise, *we* consider what they did to have been wrong. > Rav Dessler asks that if so the 2nd day of RH is not the "real" RH. If > so how we can say in our prayers that today we are being judged, today > is the day the world conceived (hayom haras olam), today the books of > life are opened etc. > > I was not clear about his answer. Assuming the two days are for > different types of "din" what happened before the institution of a 2 day > RH and during the period the Baal Hamaor describes. > Are people from EY and chutz la-aretz judged on different days. > Basically the question boils down to the question of how a takanah of > the rabbis can effect heavenly judgement That one's easy. Mekadesh yisrael vehazemanim. *All* the zemanim exist only by the rabbis' decision on when to sanctify the month. We tell the Heavenly court when to sit, so if we tell it to sit for two days it does. Presumably when the majority of rabbanei EY told it to judge their flocks for only one day, it complied with that decision. -- Zev Sero Gemar Chasimah Tovah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 08:49:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Declaration to annul future vows Message-ID: <1476114638442.90524@stevens.edu> A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of why we say Hataros Nedarim every year given that the last paragraph refers to vows in the future. The response was that Hataros Nedarim works for past vows, but not for future vows. However, today's Halacha-a-day contains the following: Can an individual at home say Kol Nidrei? Although annulment of previous vows can only be made in the presence of three men, an advance declaration to annul future vows can be made alone. Therefore, one may say the version that refers to the coming year but not the past year. The introductory lines before the words 'Kol Nidrei' should also be omitted. (1) Footnote (1) is 1. ??? ????? ???? ??. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:00:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] whole wheat challah In-Reply-To: <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> References: <1cba33.498f9753.451df99e@aol.com> <20160930101018.GA14638@aishdas.org> Message-ID: A few anecdotes: (1) In 1949, on the ship from Europe to Australia, my father overheard a passenger telling off his brother for smoking on Shabbos. To which the brother replied, "You're not such a tzadik either; I saw you eating black bread on Shabbos". My father repeats this as an example of what happens when one doesn't know what's a melacha de'oraisa and what's a mere culturally-dependent good practise. (2) My grandfather AH lived with us, and in his final years his doctor told him to eat only wholemeal bread, so the whole family switched to wholemeal bread so we'd all be eating the same thing. During that period one of our regular Shabbos guests was a young woman who was just becoming observant; one Shabbos she was at another home, and saw that they ate white challah, and said "you must not be real Lubavitchers, because Reb Arel has wholemeal challah". (3) R Betzalel Wilshansky AH was one of the first bachurim from the Kherson area, in the south of the Ukraine, to come to learn in Lubavitch. In those days yeshivos didn't have their own kitchens, and bachurim ate "days" at various homes; having come such a distance to the yeshivah, R Betzalel was invited to eat all his meals at the home of the then-LR, the Rashab. Although the Rebbe's household was fairly well off by the standards of Russia at that time, like everyone else they ate black bread during the week and white on Shabbos; but in Kherson, which was a much richer region, they ate white bread all week long. So the Rebbe instructed his rebbetzin that Tzali Khersoner was to be given white bread, because that's what he was used to. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 09:44:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbat Morning Kiddush over Schnapps in a Plastic Shot Glass Message-ID: <1476117913060.71485@stevens.edu> Please see the article on this topic by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/2016%20Kiddush%20schnapps%20RJJ.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 17:11:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:11:46 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Selig Message-ID: <1476141107.Dd31ef0.11299@m5.shachter> In Yiddish, there is a name, derived from the German name Selig, that is normally spelled with Hebrew letters that indicate the pronunciation "Zelig". In German, however, which does not allow terminal voiced consonants, the name Selig is pronounced "Zelik". A few weeks ago there was a discussion on this mailing list about that topic, in which, inter alia, the following three comments were made: > > In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound. It used to > be the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to > the original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show > off one[']s mastery of that language. > > > As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G. But > since Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that > should be irrelevant. > > > ... the only reason to spell it with a gimmel is to copy the German > spelling, which most people have no interest in doing. > Well. This is quite a calumny against my Yiddish-speaking ancestors: They misspelled words in order to show off their mastery of the German language; they copied German spelling; in fact, they slavishly followed it. I think my Yiddish-speaking ancestors deserve better than that. And, although this article perhaps belongs more on Areivim than on Avodah, since the original calumnies were allowed to appear on Avodah, this article must appear before the same audience. The first thing to note is that the set of Latin letters which Germans use to spell their language includes the letter K, and Germans have no difficulty using that letter when the spelling of a word calls for it (as in, "Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knodel"). We also note that the phoneme /g/ exists in German, and wherever it does, it is represented by the letter G (as in "Carl Gauss" -- German allows initial consonants to be either voiced or unvoiced, it is only terminal consonants that may not be voiced). When a G appears at the beginning of a syllable, it is always voiced; it is pronounced /k/ at the end of a syllable, but that is because the /g/ phoneme does not exist in German at the end of a syllable. But if Selig is pronounced as if it ended with a K, and if the letter K is available when one spells German, why isn't it spelled with a K? The second thing to note is that languages tend to be spelled the way they were pronounced when their spelling was standardized. This is obvious to people who are literate in English, which we all are. Because English pronunciation is so very different now than when its spelling was standardized, it is obvious to every one of us that English is spelled the way it was pronounced four hundred years ago, not the way it is pronounced now. But you can also see this even in languages like Russian that have barely changed at all in the past eight hundred years -- cf. the spelling of shto and yevo. So, if Selig is spelled with a G, that is plausibly because it was once pronounced that way. The third thing to note is that Yiddish is not descended from modern German. Yiddish is descended from Middle German. More precisely, Yiddish is approximately 80% descended from Middle High German, 15% from Semitic elements (Hebrew and Aramaic) and 5% from Slavic elements, with trace amounts of Latin and molybdenum. Finally, we note that native speakers of Yiddish have no trouble pronouncing terminal voiced consonants in the Germanic component of their vocabulary. Compare the Yiddish 1st-person singular indicative "hoob" to the German "habe" (where the terminal /b/ is followed by a vowel), or the Yiddish 2nd-person singular imperative "hoob" to the German "hab" (where the "b" is pronounced /p/). This cannot be attributed to Hebrew influence, because native speakers of Yiddish are incapable of pronouncing Hebrew phonemes that did not exist in Middle High German (e.g., they cannot pronounce the /th/ in "Shabbath", and mispronounce it as "Shabbos"). It can therefore only be due to the fact that terminal voiced consonants existed in Middle High German. So, it is quite plausible -- in fact, more plausible than not -- that if native speakers of Yiddish spelled "Zelig" with a gimmel, that is because it was pronounced that way, and that if there are some people today who pronounce it "Zelik", they, and not my ancestors, are the ones who are influenced (I shall not say "slavishly following", out of Ahavath Yisrael) by German. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 10 19:53:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:53:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In the RH davening there seem to be several (ashkenazi) > minhagim which are clearly wrong nevertheless they are > tradition and not changed. > Some examples > > In several piyutim the beginning of each phrase has been > transferred to the end of the phrase. One example is ... and then he gave several examples. I once read an article by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, where he discussed this exact phenomenon. I believe it was titled, "Chazan v'Kahal, o Kahal v'Chazan?" (or maybe the reverse) His main goal was to explain why the instructions go one way for some piyutim, and the other way for others. Originally, a great many (all?) of the piyutim were designed to be said primarily by the chazan, and the tzibur would respond with a response. Sometimes this response was just a word or two, and sometimes it was a whole line. Often the tzibur gave the same response through the entire piyut, and occasionally it would vary. For the piyutim which have maintained this sequence, the instruction in the machzor is "Chazan v'Kahal" - the chazan leads and the congregation responds. (In a quick search to find examples, most of what I find is individual pesukim which the leader says and the others repeat, such as the pesukim immediately before Tekias Shofar on RH, or the Shema when taking out the Sefer Torah.) But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. (The easiest-to-find examples might be any of the Pizmonim in selichos. My guess is that L'cha Dodi is in this category too.) The problem with this setup only arises when people confuse the Recital with the Response. When we all knew our roles in shul, this was a simple matter, but when everyone wants to say everything, it gets all messed up. My favorite example is V'Chol Maaminim. Rav Henkin cited it too, but I don't remember which line he chose as his example. I'll use the line that appears in the popular song: "V'chol maaminim sheHu chai v'kayam, haTov uMaytiv lara'im v'latovim." Now consider, please, which makes more sense: "Everyone believes that He lives and endures; He is good and does good to the evil and to the good." or "He portions life to all the living, and everyone believes that He lives and endures. "He is good and does good to the evil and to the good, and everyone believes that He is good to all." And beside making less sense than the original way, there's another problem with the modern arrangement (and I think Rav Henkin mentioned this too): The modern arrangement has a half-stanza at the beginning, and a half-stanza at the end, and most chazanim don't know how to fit them into the tune. R' Eli Turkel labelled these developments as "clearly wrong" and "errors", and I don't know whether Rav Henkin was less harsh, or perhaps even more disapproving. But in any case, I will surely agree that these things are difficult to change. (My pet peeve is a closely-related phenomenon, that in Kedusha on Shabbos morning, most people seem to mumble Kadosh and Baruch, while they enthusiastically sing the chazan's parts.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 08:56:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology Message-ID: it seems to be harder to find kneppel'ed lulavs. i can understand pre-packaged lulavs [which i hadn't seen in the marketplace here before ] kneppels won't pass muster with litvishe hechshers. but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the date palm? gmar tov to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 11 13:42:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> On 10/10/16 22:53, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But in many cases, this has changed. For some reason, the people wanted > to say the stanzas too, and not merely hear them from the chazan. > Perhaps this happened when siddurim became cheap and easy-to-obtain; I > don't remember if Rav Henkin gave any cause for it. But in any case, > people ended up saying the paragraph prior to the chazan, and these are > labeled "Kahal v'Chazan" - the people say it and then the chazan repeats. I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen uvodek", etc. The problem, I think, began when chazonim started singing tunes that made the first part, i.e. the response to the last call, and the second part, i.e. the next call, sound like they were one continuous item. Consider what usually happens in kedusha; the chazan says "Baruch kevod Hashem mimekomo", in a tone that clearly indicates it's the end of a sentence, and then begins "Mimekomo Hu yifen", in a tune or tone that clearly shows it's a new thing. But imagine if they would start singing from "Baruch kevod", and continue the tune right into "Mimekomo hu yifen", so that it sounded like the continuation of "Baruch kevod". People would start copying them and do it too, and the siddur printers would then print it that way, and we'd be where we are now with the piyutim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 12 15:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:40:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish after Torah reading at Minha Message-ID: I know that we don't say Kaddish after the Torah reading at Minha on Shabbat because we say the Kaddish before Shemone Esre almost immediately afterwards. Why does the same apply to Yom Kippur, when there's a massive Haftara before we get to that Kaddish? Is it a kind of Lo Felog, that the reading on YK minha shouldn't seem more important than on Shabbat, or what? GHT, GY, and MA! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 08:48:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:48:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer what group besides chabad spits? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 09:36:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I think that is basically what happened, but it's a *little* more : complicated. For instance, the chazan would start "Ha'ochez beyad : midas mishpat", and everyone would answer "vechol ma'aminim shehu Kel : emunah", and then the chazan would say it too, so as not ch"v to exclude : himself from that "kol". Then he would start the next line, "habochen : uvodek", etc... According to R/Dr Arnie Lustiger's machzor, RYBS said something similar. We are in a weird compromize between saying it with the Chazan and not interrupting hearing him. So, the Chazan begins, pauses for us, and then completes. If I may add, the pattern reminded me of the layout of Shiras haYam -- with us providing chatzi leveinos between the Chazan's levenios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 10:49:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: <1476380943266.79809@stevens.edu> >From today's Halacha Yomis Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in time for the nighttime meal? A. In general, there is a prohibition to prepare on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, or from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even if the preparation does not involve any of the melachos (39 forbidden activities). This restriction is known as hachanah. For example, one is not permitted to wash dishes on the first day of Yom Tov, if one will not need those dishes until the evening. However, Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may defrost challah or meat so that it can be used at night. This is because the removal of the challah from the freezer does not immediately prepare the food for the next day. For many hours the bread will remain frozen, and the thawing happens on its own. Since one does not actively thaw the food, but rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited form of hachanah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:10:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kneppel etiology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161013181055.GA10054@aishdas.org> : but even the regular shipped in bundles seem to be kneppel free. does : anyone know if kneppling is a genetic or infectious deformity of the : date palm? I don't have a real answer, and wouldn't be posting the following rumors if I didn't have notes on the MB about its kashrus. I was told that a knepl (or kaftor) is a genetic propensity in some lulav plants. Not genetic in the sense that all lulavim from a given tree would be bent, just that some trees had such branches. In the same discussion I was told that a "gartl" on an esrog is actually caused by disease. On the halachic question, see the MB 645 s"q 40. The SA (s' 8) specifically allows a lulav w/ a knepl. The MB adds: Rosh: Personally preferred a knepl (oheiv ani latzeis bo), as it secures the tiyumes. Levush: If most of the leaves are folded over, it is pasul. But a knepl is kosher. Taz: Use a non-knepl if available. In s"q 41 the MB defines a kosher knepl is only if the lead is mostly straight, and only folded over at the end. He then quotes the PM that this whol discussion is only if the tiyumes is mostly folded over.) And in s"q 42, he mentions that some are machmir, but accepted practice is to permit, like the SA. The MB points us to the Sha'ar haTziyun, who says that even the machmirim are only talking about the tiyomes. Looking at the Tehuvos haRosh, he is arguing with the Ritva who holds that a knepel would be "kafuf" and pasul. (My wife is babysitting an autistic kid most workdays this month. I followed the Rosh this year. Shoshanta-less esrog too.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 12:03:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] vidui booklets? Message-ID: there is an online post titled-- Cast Down the Viduy Booklets? Response to a Leading Neo-Hasidic Leader and Mashpia ---said criticism of such pamphlets was due to- because a person should not dwell too much on sin, rather they should concentrate on positive things, citing certain Hasidic teachings to that effect, particularly on the pasuk ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? . i personally find the greater detail actually helpful, and imagine that many people don't even know what the generic vidui's they are reciting mean... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 11:58:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:58:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The first time I'd ever heard of this line was my last summer as a camper (16 years old) at a Conservative summer camp. Someone had donated a box of Rinat Yisraels, and while there weren't enough to replace all of our Siddur Shilos, there were enough to replace them in the camp's small synagogue. That synagogue was where my age group davened Shacharit. One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses, of course). He left it to us to decide what we wanted to do. I have never not said that line since then, and that's over 37 years ago, before Artscroll put out the Birkat HaChama booklet. Lisa On 10/13/2016 6:48 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu?utm_content=buffer9bd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > what group besides chabad spits? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 14:07:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> References: <39c2ec9e-6f37-2676-f0c7-9c385d10a551@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161013210752.GB10054@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:58:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence of any : mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. ... : One of the counselors talked to us the first day about the new : siddurim, and pointed out that line in Aleinu (no parentheses... R/Dr Shlomo Tal did a good amount of manuscript work in creating the siddur. Restoring Aleinu is typical. Another example (which I followed him in, when compiling Ashirah Lashem, as did the Koren Sacks Siddur) is the text of Yedid Nefesh. R' Elazar Azkiri's manuscript and the first published edition both contain the nusach used by Edot haMizrach. The Ashkenazi version is clearly meshubach, both on the manuscript evidence, and it contains some verb tense issues. So RST and Koren simply included that EhM version in their Ashkenazi siddurim. And back in 2001, R' Moshe Feldman noticed that while the gemara and SA have the Birkhas haIlanos as referring to "ilanos tovos", Rinat Yisrael has the corrected diqduq of "ilanos tovim". ("Ilan" is lashon zakhar.) But then there is the whole question of whether Nusach Ashkenaz always had all these Tanakhi terms "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh", "Modim anakhnu Lakh", "shaAtah", etc... (Instead of "beSorasekha", "Lekha", "sheAtah".) Etc... It's a widespread issue that RST didn't open. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 13 15:36:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Confession: The Klausenberger Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik Message-ID: <3C.17.10233.3AC00085@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 Please see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19603 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 09:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? Message-ID: <1476461891048.73345@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind? A. Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls. There are different opinions as to what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46). This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground. The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five straps around the sukkah. This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls, based on a concept known as lovud. The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah. Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall, irrespective of the canvas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 10:03:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do Message-ID: <1476464584140.68345@stevens.edu> As is well known, in Eretz Yisroel only one day of Yom Tov is celebrated, exactly as it is written in the Torah; while in Chutz La'aretz each day of Yom Tov of the Shalosh Regalim has long since become a "two-day Yom Tov". But what is a "Chutznik" or two-day Yom Tov keeper who happens to be in Israel for Yom Tov (quite commonly yeshiva bochurim) to do? What are the guidelines and parameters to enable changing over to observe one day of Yom Tov like the natives? To find out, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: One Day or Two? What is a Chutznik in Eretz Yisrael to Do?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 08:37:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam Message-ID: <20161014153749.GA7617@aishdas.org> Reviving an 8 yr old thread to share a recent Torah Musings article. http://www.torahmusings.com/2016/10/insincere-conversions Torah Musings Insincere Conversions Posted by: Aharon Ziegler in Halakhic Positions, Posts Oct 14, 16 Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rambam in Hilchot Issurei Biaah (13:17) writes "A convert who was not examined or who was not informed about the commandments and the punishments [for transgressing them], but was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, is deemed a [valid] convert." Rav Soloveitchik commented that the Rambam does not mean to say that a person who converted with the intention of not observing the mitzvot is deemed a valid convert. Such a notion would subvert the entire concept of conversion and the holiness of Israel, which exhausts itself in our obligation to fulfill G-d's commandments. The Rambam's position is that acceptance of the mitzvot, unlike immersion, does not constitute a distinct act in the process of conversion that would require the presence of a beit din. Rather, acceptance of the commandments is a defining feature of the conversion process that must be undergone for the sake of fulfilling the commandments. Therefore, the Rav concluded that if we know that the convert, at the time of immersion, is willing to accept the "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the yoke of Heaven, the immersion effects conversion even though there was no special act of informing the convert about the commandments and his consenting to fulfill them, since the convert intends to live the holy life as an observant Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 12:57:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: : The wish is : for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those moments when we : realise immediately that we have made a mistake. I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference. And therefore not require a rewind button. Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the calendar. The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe the same unit. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 13:30:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> References: <005f01d225cb$a69ecee0$f3dc6ca0$@gmail.com> <40a187fb-522b-6034-ba62-d76d830338f9@gmail.com> <20161014195730.GA16246@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6b84e6c5-7a15-ec39-76b2-f8424b533cb6@sero.name> On 14/10/16 15:57, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:39oom EDT, Zev wrote to Areivim: >> The wish is for a toch-kedei-dibbur "rewind button", for those >> moments when we realise immediately that we have made a mistake. > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. Any > two statements made within that span is close enough to simultaneous > as to make no difference. > > And therefore not require a rewind button. However the fact is that such a button doesn't exist, and as R Saul Mashbaum wrote, "how different our lives would be" if only it did. How many times has each of us wished desperately for one? -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:51:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:51:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin on Chol Moed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1476481918632.20874@stevens.edu> ________________________________ New shiur: tefillin on chol hamoed. 10 minute clip of Rav hamburger towards the end. https://www.ou.org/holidays/sukkot/tefillin-chol-hamoed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 14 14:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:50:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Second Day Yom tov for Israelis Message-ID: <1476481842722.80804@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/j53f296 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:53:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:53:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ritual washing on Yom Kippur Message-ID: 1) On Yom Kippur, one washes in the morning, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:2 2) On Yom Kippur, one washes after the bathroom, but only the fingers. - Mechaber 613:3 3) On Yom Kippur, a Kohen washes before duchaning, to the wrist as usual. - Mishne Brurah 613:7 4) On Yom Kippur, a choleh who eats bread washes as usual, to the wrist. - Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 39:31 (39:33 in the new 5770 edition) I realize that it is risky to compare halachos that come from different poskim, but I haven't heard that the MB and SSK disagree with the Mechaber about #1 and #2. So unless someone shows me otherwise, I will presume that all three poskim agree on all four situations. If so, then why are #1 and #2 different than #3 and #4? In all four cases, the washing is allowed because it is a ritual washing, and not done for pleasure. The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim can't be relevant, because that is present for #1 and #4, but absent for #2 and #3, so it doesn't fit the pattern. I suppose an argument can be made that #1 and #2 are merely for cleanliness, while #3 and #4 are for tahara. But if that were so, then I don't know why even the fingers can be washed for #1 and #2 - we should be required to simply wipe the fingers on a towel or something else that cleans, without any water at all. Any suggestions? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 20:41:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taking a challah from the freezer on the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted for Second day Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted "From today's Halacha Yomis": > Q. Is one permitted to take a challah from the freezer on > the first day of Yom Tov, so that it will be defrosted in > time for the nighttime meal? > > A. ... ... Since one does not actively thaw the food, but > rather it defrosts on its own, this is not a prohibited > form of hachanah. I am very surprised by this. The thawing is irrelevant. Taking the challah out is already hachana. Even taking an already-thawed challah from the closet and placing it somewhere else, would constitute hachana if it is done in preparation for the nighttime meal. In fact, if the husband would remind his wife when he leaves for mincha, "Remember to take the challah out of the freezer after tzeis," that speech would be enough to constitute a violation. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > There is a glaring flaw in the article, which is the absence > of any mention of the Rinat Yisrael siddur. The author is rather ambivalent about ArtScroll; on the one hand the line *is* included in their siddur, but he writes on the other hand that they > encased the verse in parentheses, as if to suggest that the > reader serve as the arbiter of the moral dilemma. It seems that the author did not notice what was done in the ArtScroll Rosh Hashana Machzor (1985), where the line is included *without* parentheses in the Musaf Amidah (both silent and repetition), yet keeps the parentheses in the version of Alenu at the very end of Musaf. A clue to their decision might be found in the comments on page 500 (in the Chazan's repetition): > This was part of the text originally included by the Sages > in the Rosh Hashanah Mussaf. Although it was later deleted > from the Siddurim by Christian censors, R' Yehoshua Leib > Diskin and others insist that at least in Mussaf it must > be recited in its entirety. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 15 21:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir Message-ID: Suppose I give you my lulav on condition that you return it, but you *don't* return it. Mechaber 658:4 says that you failed to fulfill the tenai, so my gift to you is void, so it never left my ownership, and you're not yotzay. Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is never chal to begin with. This would totally eliminate the problem of transferring ownership back to the adult, because the child never acquired it to begin with. The lulav was, and still is, property of the adult. This would seem to be a great way for the same lulav to be used by any group containing both adults and children. The procedure has the advantage that the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an adult or a child. (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in the second half of MB 658:28.) If this procedure works, I wonder why the poskim don't suggest it. Could it be that if one makes a tenai which is not possible to fulfill, then the halacha ignores it, and the kinyan is valid as if there had been no stipulation? Suppose I am mekadesh a woman Al Tenai that two equals three. Is the kiddushin valid? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:18:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> On 2016-10-13 12:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > PS: As for broken tunes.... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, > ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has > the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol adir" correctly milra). --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:06:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] conservatism in davening In-Reply-To: <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> References: <297b1e34-a74b-047a-0905-58464fff5fb8@sero.name> <20161013163615.GD5793@aishdas.org> <1c844462-3fa3-ae7b-d3e0-d6f042a5e600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161016160647.GA1050@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:18:58AM -0400, Chesky Salomon via Avodah wrote: :> ... I still have a deep problem with "Az beqol, :> ra'ash gadol, adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" -- the standard nusach has :> the pauses in places that don't fit the grammar. : Fortunately, the nusach barely needs to be changed to accommodate the : correct grammar: the musical phrase for "az beqol" can be filled with : just "az", that for "ra'ash gadol" takes "beqol ra'ash", and that for : "adir vechazaq mashmi'im qol" needs a very subtle change to take "gadol : adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol" (works better if you pronounce "gadol : adir" correctly milra). Yes, and there are traditional tunes that isolate "Az". The pasuq from the Maaseh haMekavah (Yechezqeil 3:12) is vatisa'eini ruach va'eshma acharai qol ra'ash gadol. So, I would say that the noun is qol, the adjectives "ra'ash gadol" are tighly bound to it as that's the quotes, and "adir vechazaq" is there to describe the navi's "qol ra'ash gadol". So: Az, beqol-ra'ash-gadol adir vechazaq, mashmi'im qol... One comma moves, from after gadol to after vechazaq. My guess is the source of the nusach is an overemphasis of the difference between the navi's adjectives and the ones we're adding. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 06:34:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:34:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] alenu edit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-10-13 11:48 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2016/9/29/problem-of-alenu > what group besides chabad spits? As a side note, I have seen a manuscript /machzor/ (from the 1200s, IIRC) in the NYPL where the censorship was evident: "??? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????...". The letters were scraped off, but their remnants are visible. [The Hebrew reads: Sheheim mitshtachavim lehevel variq... va'anachnu..." Which leaves me wondering: "variq" or "velariq"? -micha] - Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 16 09:38:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:38:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Suicide in Halakhah Message-ID: <20161016163847.GC10417@aishdas.org> I was convinced, sinced quite young, that how we treat suicides in halakhah is one of those cases where the application of theoretical halakhah to make halakhah lemaaseh had changed as our understanding of the metzi'us changed. However, after seeing AhS YD 345, I see that's not quite so. R' Aqiva held that at the funeral, "lo sechabdo velo seqalelo, for who can know whether he was out of his mind, or an oneis due to some fear or panic. Therefore, lay him to rest stam..." (Semachos, beginning of ch. 2) Deeming someone a me'abeid atzmo lada'as requires a statement tokh kedei dibur, so that we know for sure it's ledaas, and that his daas was sound. Afterall, we have to overcome the norm that people don't just commit suicide. There is also the case of Ben Gorgos, whose father frightened him so badly abot what his punishment would be, he committed suicide rather than face his father. The fear was irrational, as his chosen way out was worse than anything his father would have done. R' Tarfon deemed it oneis. So it seems we were avoiding applying the din of me'abeid atzmo lada'as since the days of the tana'im. It isn't some modern change. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 17 13:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:04:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Request for greater information Message-ID: <0f366ad6-566c-73c1-2704-ea7b45b189f2@zahav.net.il> When posting a link, can I request that there be some information regarding the content of the linked article? Add in the first paragraph, a quick summary, something? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 19 09:58:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: Has anyone seen this in action? >From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the s'chah is pasul. https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 See pages 44-45. Any ideas? Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 05:26:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:26:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161020122605.GC19673@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:58:22AM -0700, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone seen this in action? : From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the : s'chah is pasul. >From it seems RYSE discusses your question, which has become a machloqes haposqim: ... Such Sechach enables one to continue performing the Misva of Sukka even under rainy conditions, and it thus might seem preferable to use such Sechach. Indeed, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), in Sefer Ha'sukka, ruled that it is permissible and even recommended to use this rainproof Sukka. He was then asked how to reconcile his ruling with the custom recorded by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343), in the name of the Samak (Sefer Misvot Katan by Rabbi Yishak of Corbeil, 13th century), not to construct Sukkot with impenetrable Sechach. According to this custom, which is codified by the Shulhan Aruch, the Sechach must be a temporary covering which does not protect the Sukka from the elements. Rav Elyashiv responded that this refers to very dense Sechach which cannot be penetrated by wind, rain or insects, and such Sechach cannot be used because the Sukka must be a crude, temporary structure. The new rainproof Sechach, by contrast, has spaces through which wind and insects can enter the Sukka, but is constructed in such a way that rain immediately falls off the Sechach without entering the Sukka. Such Sechach does not violate the requirement to use a temporary covering. This is also the position taken by Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law, Rav Haim Kanievsky (contemporary), in Sheraga Meir. Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained that although rainproof Sechach might be technically permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. This is also the view of Rabbi Yishak Yaakob Weiss of the Eda Ha'haredit (in Keneh Ha'bosem). The Yalkut Yosef (Sukka, p. 85) cites both views without reaching a conclusion, and it appears that Hacham Ovadia Yosef did not issue a ruling on this issue. In light of the difference of opinion that exists, it would seem that one should preferably not use such Sechach, especially given the fact that we are dealing with a Biblical obligation. However, one who already owns this Sechach may certainly rely on the ruling of Rav Elyashiv and use it for the Misva. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 06:16:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. I have seen a new trend in recent years, in which people are making a special kugel or cholent, specifically for erev Shabbos, and sharing it with family and friends in the last half hour or hour before shul on Friday evening. This would make sense to me, perhaps, if it were earlier in the afternoon, in the summer when Shabbos will be beginning very late. It could also be a good idea for guests who just arrived afyer a long and hungry trip. But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv Shabbos afternoon. Has anyone else seen this practice? Does anyone know what the origin of this practice is, or the justification for it? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 10:18:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> On 19/10/16 12:58, Chaim Tatel via Avodah wrote: > Has anyone seen this in action? > From what I've seen in the poskim, if it can't rain in your sukkah, the > s'chah is pasul. > > https://issuu.com/lakewoodweekly/docs/lakewood_weekly_vol_18_issue_35 > See pages 44-45. > > Any ideas? It's a machlokes rishonim. Rabbenu Tam says the definition of a sukkah is a structure that offers shelter from the sun but *not* from the rain. If it shelters from the rain too, it's a house. The Rosh disagrees, because the pasuk (Yeshaya 4:6) says that a sukah also protects from storms and rain. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 11:07:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:07:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Kugel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20/10/16 09:16, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I know that there is a mitzvah to taste one's Shabbos food on erev > Shabbos afternoon. But I understand that the express purpose of this is > for testing the flavor, so that one can adjust the cooking or > ingredients, to make sure that the food comes out as desired. If that were the reason then only the cook should taste it. The first source I know of for the minhag, and the connection to the phrase "toameha chayim zachu", is in Machzor Vitry, who attributes it to an unknown braisa that gives no reason but simply says that one who tastes the shabbos food on erev shabbos will enjoy a long life, and to an equally unknown Yerushalmi which says it's for sholom bayis, to assure oneself that the cooks didn't burn the food. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14643&pgnum=382 The AriZal gives a reason closer to yours, but again it's symbolic rather than practical. It's not so much to actually ensure that the food is good, but to be seen to be concerned about it, which shows honour to the expected guest for whom the food has been prepared. This again explains why it's the host, not the cook who tastes the food, because he feels a need to reassure himself that all is in order and the guest will have a good time. > But the idea of a scheduled snack specifically for enjoyment before > Shabbos seems to violate the whole issur against eating late Eruv > Shabbos afternoon. The issur is to have a fixed meal, which is an insult to Shabbos. Again this is about symbolism rather than actuality. Even if ones appetite will not be affected, scheduling a meal just before shabbos would show that shabbos is not ones top concern. But scheduling a tasting shows just the opposite, that one is thinking of nothing but the coming shabbos, and can't wait for it to arrive. Naturally one whose appetite *will* be affected should be careful to take only a tiny taste, or even not eat at all, if that's what he needs to do. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 20 18:18:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:18:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> References: <2bb08f87-8cdc-b82a-92fb-7f8d37c7acf1@sero.name> Message-ID: <222e088b-5e3c-f69a-9f4a-c2c9e24fb6c6@sero.name> PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:10:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to > simultaneous as to make no difference. That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough, we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may have changed his mind in the interim. I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court. But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the second one is what he had intended to say. > Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a > mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom > eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1 > cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because > a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the > calendar. > > The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't > be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a > way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe > the same unit. It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.) I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic quantum of time. Pro: Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer to each one." I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's *not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two. Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it counts! Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous, because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek". Con: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer than it takes to say an average word. In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is "one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is assur." Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi and General Cho's chicken: Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food? A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 05:55:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:55:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021125519.GA29622@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time. : > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to : > simultaneous as to make no difference. : : That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal : established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he : change his mind?"... I would consider that cause-and-effect. IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind so quickly. Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not the objective reality science studies. And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be our halachic quantum of time. : I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is : the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10 : syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer : than it takes to say an average word. Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time inteval. : In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is ... : Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than : a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for : Kaddish, it is not so for brachos. But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice, and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event if the sequence were wrong. Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD. (Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 03:27:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: > Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi > (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be > trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies, > and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been > using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained > that although rainproof Sechach might be technically > permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they don't passel this new one. It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long, it's really no contest. Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 04:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of carrying, each with its own set of halachos: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161021130111.GA6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org : : 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted : 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited : 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:42:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> References: <1477049707483.23030@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <9dbab59d-e349-f54f-e7b2-2b9e47403c4c@sero.name> On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people > install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and > unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it > is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry > their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a > house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock? > > *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a > violation of Torah Law. > [...] > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number *eight times*.) Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on yomtov. But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore permitted. According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur! Also, according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there! Both of these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's position. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:15:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:15:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021131527.GC6203@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a : mikvah... RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah quoting R' Aqiva. 1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself. 2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah. The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself. Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir. I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man : > ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon) > is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem > Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two > levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song > lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.) > R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti > aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where > man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second > (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself, > not being purified by another. > This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in > another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer, > and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet > from my post in v6n161: ... And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 06:05:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: :> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi :> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be :> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, :> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been :> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained :> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically :> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach. : I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? ... We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as "outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism. But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works than sentiment / nostalgia. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 08:08:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable > for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for > reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person > who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur. To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 12:35:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it. As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking. My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say no. I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story. It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 13:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: <02b98d7c-16c0-4ff9-32f6-eea92905c4aa@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161021200058.GA16533@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular : house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it : either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the : Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ... OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available. I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies, "I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter, what more did you expect Me to do?" I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 21 15:12:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na Message-ID: Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na versus nach? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:11:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:05:21AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com: >:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi >:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be >:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies, >:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been >:> using for generations... >: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa? > ... > We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as > "outsmarting halachah".... I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. What qualifies as "outsmarting halakhah" in RSW's view? There could be a general machloqes lying here. Does RSW have problems with Zomet-eques angineering solutions to hilkhos Shabbos that RYSE doesn't? (And what is heter isqa or mechiras chameitz?) Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 17:17:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shva na In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ba02815-e96a-a79d-02ed-e261fd4584e8@sero.name> On 21/10/16 18:12, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open > simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the > designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L > tradition( or else the mark designated something else. ). Is there > variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na > versus nach? Tehilas Hashem follows the shita of 18th-century grammarian R Zalman Hanau. I don't know that this is any kind of Lubavitcher tradition; I think it more likely that it was simply a matter of the editor of the first American edition (who later became LR) looking for a similar-enough siddur to cut and paste for photo offset, and happening to choose one that had followed this shita. Since in practise most Lubavitchers are not makpid on correct pronunciation in davening (as opposed to laining), I wonder if he even noticed this detail. (Many decades later he mentioned publicly that the siddur had been prepared in a hurry because there was a shortage of siddurim at the time, and he had not been able to put as much care into it as he would have liked.) In the '90s there was an edition published in Kfar Chabad, in which the shva nas were marked according to the rules taught by R Mottel Shusterman a"h, who for many years was the bal korei in 770, and whom the LR had instructed to teach dikduk at Oholei Torah. It was met with a negative reception, and I don't know whether it has been reprinted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Hanau PS: I wrote "the first American edition" because Lubavitch published two editions of Tehilas Hashem in Rostov during WW1, one in Nusach Lubavitch and one in Nusach Ashkenaz, for the benefit of the many NA-davening refugees who needed siddurim. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 18:12:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:12:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16f003db-3247-0886-01a5-fdb5918a5909@sero.name> On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the > s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu > Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do > not seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but > they don't passel this new one. > > It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah > that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and > (b) a non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week > long, it's really no contest. In fact that is one of Rabbenu Tam's arguments. If it were possible to build a sukkah that keeps out the rain, then what heter could anyone have to leave the sukkah just because it's raining? Throw some more schach on the roof and sit! Who asked you to build such a flimsy sukkah in the first place? The fact that we are not required to do this shows that it would passel the sukkah. BTW, RT had a brother-in-law called R Shimon who built a rain-proof sukkah, and RT passeled it. I don't know who this R Shimon was, though I wonder whether it's a typo for Shimshon, since we know that his wife Miriam was the sister of R Shimshon ben Yosef hazaken of Falaise, the grandfather of the Ritzba and the Rashba of Sens. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 22 20:30:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time Message-ID: The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:37:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:37:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a quantum of time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161023103702.GB5784@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:30:31PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : The g'mara states that if a person thought a relative had died and : tore k'ria, and then the relative died, he has fufilled his obligation if : the death takes place toch k'dei dibbur of the k'ria. This would seem to : indicate that TKD is not a question of undoing, but rather of simultaneity. Okay, so then why does sequence matter when it comes to an an amein chatufah that was within TKD, but not WRT qeri'ah vs petirah? In both cases, the response precedes what is supposed to be what we're responding to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 03:28:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:28:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? In-Reply-To: <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> References: <20161021130521.GB6203@aishdas.org> <20161023001113.GB27452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1d7c3c16-a940-eac6-0503-b13de4b6a433@zahav.net.il> A few weeks ago I heard a talk where the cited the Ohr Tzarua. People would (dafka) have a leech treatment during Sukkot. The treatment left them weak and therefore they were patur from sleeping in the Sukka. He gave this as an example of "rounding a corner" and something which should be avoided. Ben On 10/23/2016 2:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> >We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as >> >"outsmarting halachah".... > I thought about this repeatedly during Shabbos. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 01:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background Message-ID: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while he is reciting his Hallel? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 05:39:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] waterproof schach Message-ID: [Email #1, in ewply to R' Akica Miller:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom > Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to. There is no requirement to use advanced technology so that one can fast on YK. Of course it would depend on the nature of the technology. Certainly anything invasive is not required. [Email #2, in reply to Zev:] > To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on > Yom Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical > technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father > and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they > had to.>> As a generality I would take all pskei halacha from the internet that are posted on avodah with a grain a salt. These are opinions are individual rabbis and there are frequently other opinions. As am example we have had discussions of non-Israeli keeping 2 days of yomtov when visiting Israel. I have numerous freinds from the US who keep one day in Israel on grounds that they own an apartment, come for all 3 regalim etc. Many rabbis allow stidents studying in Israel to keep one day. Outside of Jerusalem it can be very difficult to keep a second day. Similarly in the opposite case I am aware of opinions that allow Israelis to do work in private on the second day of yom tov. In both cases many rabbis are machmir. So finding a machmir opinion on the web is not a psak for every individual. Even more so for newer cases like carrying a key on yomtov when one has a keyless lock available at home I would guess that there are various opinions by modern poskim. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 08:01:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:01:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waterproof S'chach? Really? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to > the Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were > sawn in half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the > top layer, are klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah. I had always thought that the halacha made a distinction between two different kinds of ladders: If the sides of the ladder have depressions made into them, and the rungs are stuck into those depressions, then the depressions are considered Beis Kibul (a container) and so the ladder is mekabel tumah and pasul as s'chach. But if the sides have holes that go all the way from one side to the other, and that's where the rungs are put, then no part of the ladder is a container, even thouse the sides DO contain the rungs, and it may be used as s'chach. If I am correct on that, Beis Kibul is defined by being able to contain *liquids*, and has nothing to do with usefulness, and a half-pipe is kosher s'chach just like the second type of ladder. Unfortunately, this distinction ought to made by someone on Orach Chaim 629:7, and I don't see it. Is it there and I don't see it, or am I mistaken? (I do see that the end of MB 629:23 mentions a *third* type of ladder, where the rungs are not inserted into any sort of holes at all, but are nailed to the outside of the rails. But that does not help to clarify the case of the half-pipes.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 11:02:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:02:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer in the background In-Reply-To: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> References: <2e6a54c5-e1cf-a61e-aaff-f9c2ba4265fe@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 23/10/16 04:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? I can't see why there would be any problem, though personally this recording is more my style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pwe9-oiF2Y :-) -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 23 10:30:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Ha Motzi Message-ID: <1477243914645.70255@stevens.edu> >From a recent Daf Hayomi B'Halacha http://www.dafhalacha.com/daily-emails-2/ Reciting hamotzi as a group When a small group of people join for a meal, it is proper for one person to recite birkas hamotzi for all of them. This falls under the general rule of b'rov am hadras melech - "the glory of the King is in the multitudes." The pause while waiting for everyone to wash is not considered an interruption between the washing and the beracha because it is necessary for the mitzva. The most prestigious member of the group should recite the blessing. The poskim discuss whether the person reciting the blessing should wash first or last (so that he should not have to endure a long pause between washing and the beracha). (?"? ?-?; ??????? ??????? ????, 9 (??????? ?????)) Reciting hamotzi as individuals If a large group joins for a meal, it is preferable -- when possible -- for each one to recite his own hamotzi right after he washes, since it is likely that the people who were among the first to wash will lose focus or talk during the long wait. Additionally, one should not wait more than the span it takes to walk twenty-two amos between washing and reciting hamotzi. The poskim agree that in a situation where each person will recite his own beracha, the most prestigious in the group washes first. (?"? ?; ??????? ??????? ????, 10) _______________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, no guidelines are given regarding how many people constitute a small group and how many a large group. On Shabbos I am accustomed to make Ha Motzi for all at the table, because of the requirement for Lechem Mishna, but I do not do this during the week. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 05:43:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei RAL Message-ID: The most recent edition of the Zohar magazine has several articles dedicated to RAL. One article is by R Shmuel David (chief rabbi of Afula) containing oral psakim to him by RAL Below are several examples He stresses that RAL did not consider himself a posek and in the yeshiva R Amital was the posek. Though RAL was baki in Bacli, Yerushalmi and Rishonim (including relatively less studied ones as Raaviyah etc) he claimed that he no mesorah from his rebbeim for psak even though he knew by heart every Schach in YD and CM.. In general when talmidim came to him with questions he would present both sides of the psak and say it was up to the talmid to study more and come to his own conclusion. Some samples RAL wore tzizit out only partially - he said that neither of his rebbeim wore tzizit out but today everyone does so that is his compromise. He was convinced by the arguments for techelet but again his rebbeim didnt use them and so he didn't either. He was very insistent on dipping bread in salt safek brachot le-hakel applies only if one is in doubt. However if one studies the issue and comes to a conclusion it is not a safek. If a (Jewish) driver asks directions on shabbat RYBS held one should answer to limit the driver from extra driving. RAL preferred to avoid causing explicit chilul shabbat RAL (together with RYBS) was very insistent that one who shaves regularly should shave during chol hamoed and the sfirah. He quoted RMF that allowed it but said a "yereih shamayon" should not shave. RAL said he didn't understand on the contrary a yirei shamayim should be careful of "zilzul" of the chag. For the 3 weeks he originally held the same but later stopped shaving even erev shabbat On Chanukah the candles should last until the last passerbys have gone home (what about times square?) On Purim one can eat cake after the fast before the megillah if fasting would cost loss of concentration. A newborn with a heart condition but the doctor says that a brit milah would be no danger. RAL paskened to nevertheless push off the milah until after the operation. He brought down that RYBS would use "kavod habriyot" as a reason for heter but would always "wrap" it other reasons for heter. Campaigns for bone marrow that would include giving to nonJews - RAL answer was that Avraham avinu would do it so why not everyone When driving he would pick up even if they were not Jewish. He was once asked by several girls for a ride back home and he hesitated about one man with many girls but it is on public roads. He decided that gemilat chassadim overrode his doubts. RAL said there was no problem with women wearing pants as long as they were not tight He allowed a young couple to use contraception for a short time while they finish their studies. He said that was preferable to pushing off the marriage. Originally he thought one should not leave EY to visit Jewish communities abroad, He later saw that poskim allowed travel abroad for a livelihood even when it was beyond bare necessities. So he decided that visiting Jewish communities is as much of a reason as going for luxuries. -------------------------------------- Another interesting article was on a shiur RAL gave numerous times in the Gush on "Talmudic methodology" . The author noted that though RAL used and extended Brisker methods when he did pasken it was not on that basis but on previous psak including mishna berura -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 26 07:34:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:34:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel with a recorded singer Message-ID: > Would there be any issues involved in some who is praying along to play > a recording of Rav Shlomo Carlebach (as an example) singing Hallel while > he is reciting his Hallel? In my son's tor5ani yishuv in the shomron they have a custom that on one day chol hamoed succot they daven Hallel with a band Also on simchat Torah they don't do hakafot in Shacharit (they finish about 11am) instead they gather all the minyanim in the yishuv after Mincha and do hakafot until maariv. Immediately after maariv they begin hakafot sheniot with a singer/electronic piano -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 27 02:29:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:29:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ISO: Article on siddur grammarians of the 17th-18th centuries Message-ID: Rabbosai, Does anyone know of a good article providing an overview of the work of the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy (I want the controversies included in the article, too)? Yasher koach, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 01:42:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:42:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? Message-ID: The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo). R'Yochanan questions the use of one term in the reisha and the other term in the seifa based on the fact that using the two terms in this manner leaves the law in an in-between case, (lo kiymo but lo bitlo)unclear, and therefore tells him to teach it in the future with the same term. I was thinking of two ways of looking at this. On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 02:09:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:09:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden Message-ID: How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? At the end of the story G-d places cherubin to protect (?) the way to the garden. While most commentaries assume this means to prevent people RSRH and Kafka say it means to show the way to the garden. Kafka asks why if G-d didnt want people going there why not just destroy the place rather than keeping it so nobody can get there? Hear d a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. Some of the questions where was Adam, why did the story start with Eve and not Adam, the story implies that Adam and Eve were alive before G-d created the garden - where were they? What does "etz chaim" mean . Was man really meant to live forever, sometimes that can bea curse. How about Adam's descendants were they supposed to live forever also - otal polulation of the globe from then until now is too immense for the globe etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 03:19:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : How (when?) did the phrase Gan Eden which appears in Bersehit as a physical : place get transformed to a place for the sould after death? Couldn't you ask the same about a valley outside (nowadays well inside) Y-m? Seems to me that both are simply comparisons -- a place as nice as gan eden, a place as bad as the local Canaanite center of child sacrifice. However, the two uses of gen eden is more similar than the uses of gehennom. Because Adam before the sin was less encumbered by the physical. The reality he enountered was more like olam baba than the olam hazeh we experience. See Michtav meiEliyahu vol I, "Olamos deAsiyah veYetzirah", pp 304-312. For that matter, according to REED, even the arrow of time is a post-sin phenomenon -- vol II, pp 150-154, vol IV, pg 113. Whereas (according to the Ran) the physical fires of Gei Ben Hinnom are being compared to the feeling of absolute and inescapable shame. ... : Heard a shiur that this is one of the most difficult stories in chumash. And Mishlei is one of the most difficult books in Tanakh. Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, more comparisons to learn from. I bet that if we weren't distracted in other texts by more ability to understand the narrative as narrative, we would have similar lists of questions. What do you think the Abarbanel would say to that suggestion? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:07:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:07:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: Maaseh Bereishis is incomprehensible. The "only" things we're going to > pull out of this part of chumash are meshalim for our own lives. Meshalim > are intentionally enigmatic, as they hint at more and more to analyze, > more comparisons to learn from. > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 06:37:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gan Eden In-Reply-To: References: <20161028101946.GB30497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 2016-10-28 8:07 am, Simon Montagu wrote: > This is exactly what I mean when I say that the early chapters of > Bereshit are myths. I know you don't like that expression, and it's indeed > problematic because one has to immediately add disclaimers: "not in the > sense that they are false but in the sense of narratives which convey deep > messages central to a culture beneath the surface" etc. etc. etc, but it's > what I believe: HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths. No need for "and" -- I don't like the expression because it's misleading without the disclaimers. That said, my point is slightly different. Not that "HKBH chose to reveal the beginning of the world as myths". People could only relate to the text on a mythical level. The point I am making is in what people can take away from the communication, not in what He chose to communicate. Which means that it could well be a literal but incomprehensible-to-human description of the history of creation, for all we know. And likely is. Usually we have the "myth" discussion about aggadic stories. Because the rabbis who wrote them either didn't care about historicity and scientific precision or were WAY our of sync with their times on topics that don't aid their mission. So there, I think they were written as myth (in the technical sense). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 04:49:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:49:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org < http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>: > But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine > Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option > is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without > carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry > the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of > carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15). > 15) Shulchan Aruch Harav 618:1. R' Zev Sero commented: > This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote > 15, even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this > claim at all. I believe that the writer never bothered looking his > alleged sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect > chapter number *eight times*.) > > Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use > it. ... ... The "incorrect chapter number" that RZS refers to is "618", which should be "518". My opinion is that the writer surely *did* look his sources up, but this sort of error is one which is very easy to make. Translating "tav kuf" into a number requires rudimentary arithmetic, and it is all too easy to be off by 100. And then, having made the error once, it is frighteningly easy to neglect checking the math on subsequent citations, even "eight times" or more. I've made this sort of mistake myself, an embarrassingly high number of times. (The best prevention is when someone *other* than the author does the proofreading, but not everyone has the time or resources for this.) Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into the house without it. It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 05:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Kima Message-ID: Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find any source that explains how that identification was made. Does anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 07:05:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Its measure is longer than the earth Message-ID: <20161028140502.GA12184@aishdas.org> Iyov 11:9 reads: Arukah mei'eretz midahh - Its measure is longer than the earth urchavah minni yam - and broader than the sea. (The "it" here is lashon neqeivah, hidden in a "-ahh", mapiq hei, suffix.) Rav Chisda darshened to Mari bar Mar (Eiruvin 21a) that the "it" is the body of mitzvos (c.f. Tehillim 119:96). We don't know when Iyov was written, with opinions in the gemara ranging from Moshe Rabbeinu to Iyov being one of the returnees after galus Bavel. (c.f, BB 14b, 15a-15b) However, at some point within that range of time the Greeks came up with this thing they called geometry, or geo + metry = earth measuring, as divying up land was geometry's initial primary function. It would be an interesting coincidence (or "coincidence") if the words "mei'eretz midahh" were not a translation of "her geo-metry." Even with the second clause having no similar Greek parallel that I know of. Along these lines.... We all know the idea from Chazal that a child learns Torah in the womb. Compare to Plato. He didn't understand how people can learm math and other abstract ideas, since we never experience them. So, Plato posited that the psyche learns the Forms, the Ideals before birth, and is only reminded of them in life when they are "taught". Sound familiar? The maamar Chazal is basically: No, it's not the Forms that are the primary knowledge, it's Torah. Much like saying that halakhah is bigger than geometry. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 28 08:41:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d751721-f097-91ac-0aba-e40d4ce7f829@sero.name> On 28/10/16 07:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyway, back to the halacha in question. The last half of that Shulchan > Aruch Harav gives two examples: One may carry the key to his desk drawer > on Yom Tov, but only if that drawer contains items like food and drink, > but not if it contains only money. And one may carry his pocketknife > with him all day because he might come across a fruit that needs to be > cut, but not when he goes to shul because such a situation would > definitely not arise. It seems to me that both of these are good sources > for the halacha that one may not carry the housekey if one can get into > the house without it. Neither of these examples can honestly be cited as sources for the extreme assertion in the article. In both these cases the question is simply whether one has a use for the item, not whether one could get along without it. If the drawer contains something that has a yomtov use one may carry the key, *even if* one's house is perfectly safe. And one may carry a knife to cut fruit, *even if* one can eat them without cutting, or there's likely to be a knife where the fruit is. It's only when the key is to a lock that one has no reason ever to open on yomtov, or the knife is being carried to a place where there is nothing to cut, that one may not carry it. > It seems to me that an even better source for this halacha might be > Mishne Brura 518:6. At first he is even more lenient than ShArHarav, > saying that avoiding the worry about losing his money *is* enough > tzorech to warrant carrying the key to that drawer. But then he cites a > machlokes on whether theft prevention is enough of a tzorech to justify > m'leches hotzaah on Yom Tov. He recommends being machmir on this point, > and then adds (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation > where one can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is > at home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is a yomtov use. > In contrast to what RSZ wrote, if one has a combination lock for his > home that he uses on Shabbos, then this Mishne Brura seems to be saying > that he *does* have to use it on Yom Tov too. When I lived in an area > without an eruv, I wore my Shabbos Key on Yom Tov, precisely because of > this Mishne Brurah. There were people at home who could let me in, so I > didn't see any heter to carry the housekey. And yet you carry the key. Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you should not carry it on yomtov. -- Zev Sero Wishing everyone a good aquittal zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 00:36:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:36:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't fly over one of them. When they get close to NY all of the flights to JFK fly over Long Island which has a number of large Jewish cemeteries, Again, who says that the planes don't fly over them. Since it's an issur d'oraysa we should say sefeka d'raysa l'chumra. I have a few questions related to this. Is the problem with the Holon cemetary because the plane flies low over teh cemetery (close to takeoff)? Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on the moon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 02:42:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 05:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I > don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. Take a flight from Israel to > NY. The plane flies over much of Western Europe and England, there are > any number of Jewish cemetaries there who says that the plane doesn't > fly over one of them. Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Is there any sevara to say that the tumah doesn't reach the height > of planes to 30,000+ feet? If not what about in orbit? What about on > the moon? What about it? Why should it be any different? What basis do you have to distinguish it? Tum'ah goes down to the centre of the earth and up forever. If we happen to know that a particular bit of space is over a Jewish grave then we'd have to treat it accordingly. [Email #2. -micha] On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim > can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international > airport. The article suggests an alternative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:25:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <> first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the curvature of the earth? As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is over the Holon cemetery I have also seen other reasons for allowing a cohen to fly over a cemetery. RMF says that there is a question of the status of the modern materials that a plane is made out of - are they halachic metals? In any case the problem with the Holon cemetery is that the flight path is well known. It is highly unlikely to be flying over a Jewish grave in Europe and we wouldn't prohibit the flight based on a far fetched safek. see for example http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1026 a detailed discussion - in Hebrew appears in http://www.elhamikdash.com/49876/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D---%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A3- As a generality I highly recommend the site of olamot that has hundreds of topics with sources. The main problem with the site is that each discussion is a collection of source material with no connection between the various materials For the specific topic of kohanim flying over a cemetery see http://olamot.net/shiur/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 10:54:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] cohen in plane over cemetery Message-ID: As previously mentioned one of the heterim for flying over a cemetery is that a plane is not made from the metals mentioned in the Torah. When looking at responsa it is important to take into account the change of plane construction of the years. In fact the Wright aitplane was made mainly from wood! Todays planes are made mainly from Alumimum and titantium and various composites see http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-kinds-materials-are-used-make-aircraft -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:29:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:29:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> References: <3a35666b-101c-9037-aedc-8bb1516f6f57@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 30/10/16 03:36, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim >> can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international >> airport. > The article suggests an alternative. As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. [Email #2. -micha] I did a quick search on Orbitz for flights from Haifa to Cyprus, here is what I got: We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 [Email #3. -micha] On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Without certain knowledge that it does there is no > problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does *not* > consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without such graves, so > each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed to be tahor unless you > know (as in this case) that it isn't. Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 11:12:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91937f3d-158a-1d0b-a952-e1f7c07d67fc@sero.name> On 30/10/16 09:31, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Who says it does? Without certain knowledge that it does there is >> no problem. The overwhelming majority of the earth's surface does >> *not* consist of Jewish graves, and all of it was created without >> such graves, so each bit of surface you travel over can be assumed >> to be tahor unless you know (as in this case) that it isn't. > Why not? Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure > that they aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a > number of Jewish cemetaries in Europe. Why should they have to? The vast majority of the earth's surface is permitted to them; why should they suspect that the flight path includes one of the few forbidden places? >> Why did you write this, when the article suggests an alternative? >> > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 13:23:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> From: Marty Bluke via Avodah Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks " >> Due to the fact that all flights taking off will pass over the cemetary in Holon (see http://www.kikar.co.il/212365.html). This is quite an issue for Kohanim, basically it means that Kohanim can't leave Israel as Ben Gurion is pretty much the only international airport. If it is really a problem for a Kohen to fly over a cemetary then I don't understand how Kohanim fly anywhere. .... << >>>>> Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 04:37:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:37:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: <> The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they should not change. My impression is that there is a handful of shuls that follow this opinion while thousands follow minhag EY. I am not familar with all the psakim of R. Hamburger (he has several seforim on the topic). For example standard practice that I know is that on chol hamoed succot the parshah of the day is read 4 times consecutively. Do these shuls really read from the next day also as done outside of Israel? I take it for granted that these communities do not keep two days of yomtov and eat in the succah on shemini azeret. I know that Rav Elyashiv was asked about wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed and prohibited it but these communities continued to argue with the psak. <> I find this statement quite strange. The minhag of not wearing tefillin in EY on chol hamoed is practiced by 99% of religious Jews living in EY. Isn't that justification enough? RSZA, RYSE, ROY, RAL among others didnt wear tefillin on chol hamoed were they all wrong? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 06:20:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Man and Animal Message-ID: <1477833633097.91835@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field that God had made, and it said to the woman: Even if God has said so, are you [really] not to eat from all the trees of the garden? The difference between man and animal is the touchstone of human morality. The logic of an animal persuaded the first man to deviate from the path of duty; today this same animal logic still serves as midwife to all human sin. The story of the first sin is the story of all subsequent sins. The animals are truly k'elokim yodiai tov v'ra. They are endowed with instinct, and this instinct is the voice of God, the Will of God as it applies to them. Whatever animals do is in accordance with their instinct; they can act only in accordance with their instinct. For animals, this instinct is Divine guidance operating within them. What animals do in accordance with their instinct is good, and any act from which their instinct restrains them is bad. Animals cannot err; they have only their one nature, whose call they must heed. Not so in the case of man. He is to opt for the good and shun evil out of his own free will and sense of duty. Even when he gives his physical nature its due, he must do so not because of the allure of his senses, but out of a sense of duty. Even when he takes physical pleasure, he must act in moral freedom. Man must never be an animal. Therefore, he has within him Divine forces besides physical drives. His physical nature must of necessity be opposed to the good and attracted to evil; only thus will he choose the good and shun evil - not because of the urging of his senses, but in spite of it. Through the freedom of his Divine nature, he is to fulfill his lofty Divine calling. For this reason, the voice of God does not speak from within him, but to him, telling him what is good and what is evil. God's voice meets resistance from man's physical nature, as long as this nature remains independent and without guidance. God's voice that whispers within man - the innate conscience, whose messenger is the sense of shame - serves only to warn man, in general terms, to do good and shun evil. Precisely which acts are good and which evil - this he can learn only from the mouth of God speaking to him from outside himself. The animal merely develops its physical nature, to which its intelligence is completely subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Par subservient. Man, however, was not placed in Paradise to satisfy his physical nature with the delights offered there. He was placed in Paradise l'avdah u'lismarah , to serve God there and to build His world. This service is man's task, and only for its sake was he permitted to partake of the fruits of Paradise. The individual nature of the animal is the basis on which it assesses everything, because the animal was created only for itself. Man, however, was created to glorify God and to build His world. He must gladly sacrifice his individual nature to this higher calling. He must learn what is good and what is evil, not in accordance with his individual nature, but in accordance with his lofty calling. For this reason, the tree was appealing to his senses, and its fruit was enticing to him. Everything in his individual nature told him: "This is good." But God's Word to him forbade him to eat of the fruit of this tree and told him that to do so would be evil. This was the rule by which man was to differentiate between good and evil; this was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our Sages, too, see in God's Word to man the revelation of all of man's duties (see above, 2:16). At this point, man encountered animal logic in the form of its cleverest representative: the serpent. Even the cleverest of animals is incapable of understanding how man could possibly forgo a pleasure that becomes available to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 08:45:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Hillel Bick via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] re grammarians and the siddur Message-ID: <15816448df5-7730-f095@webprd-a32.mail.aol.com> have a look at the introductions to Rav Yaakov Emden's Luach Eres -by R. JJ Scechter and R David Yitzchaki ( about 60 pages of material) Hillel Bick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 09:12:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/30/2016 5:24 AM "Rich, Joel via Avodah" wrote: > The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material) concerning the memorized text (bitlo vs. kiymo)... On one level, it could be simply a transmission error that R'Yochanan was looking to fix. Although I'm not in the sugya, from R. Yochonon's introductory phrase, ''mai ka-amart,'' (''what are you saying?!''), I would go with this explanation, especially since we know that Amoraim were critical of such ''reciters'' who sometimes produced corruptions of the citations that knowledge and application of halachic principles would prevent. > Yet we see cases where an intermediate case is indeterminate and the gemara simply concludes that we can't determine the halacha from this source. Perhaps the difference is whether, as in the case cited, the Amora, considers his editing obvious on the strength of what he maintains are established external principles. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 12:41:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > The only reason one is carrying the key is so that it won't be > stolen; thus it has no use on yomtov, but the MB says that if > carrying it gives one peace of mind then perhaps that itself is > a yomtov use. There are two different situations we must look at: (A) A person who lives alone and the lock is his only protection against theft, and (B) One who has other means of protecting his property. In the first case, there is a machlokes whether he may carry his key, and RZS's use of the word "perhaps" signals that he agrees that this is a machlokes. But regarding the second case, I quoted the MB who wrote: > (in the square brackets): "And especially in a situation where one > can give the objects or the key to a trustworthy person who is at > home, for then it is assur according to all opinions." to which RZS responded: > Again, this is a situation where it is guaranteed that there will > never be a legitimate reason to use the key on yomtov. There is > nothing in the drawer that one might want on yomtov, nor is one > going to put anything there on yomtov. The only reason one is > carrying the key is so that it won't be stolen; thus it has no use > on yomtov, ... I disagree. Everyone agrees that there's no distinction between "real" ochel nefesh (like bringing food to one's friend) and other needs (like bringing a lulav to shul). The only distinction is between those needs and theft prevention. In other words, there's no distinction between preventing the theft of my money that's in the locked drawer, and the theft of my food that's in the locked house. I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, so I used my Shabbos key. > Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let > those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a > use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you > should not carry it on yomtov. There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If you think that's enough of a tzorech then I won't argue, but I figure that since the only reason the door is locked is for security anyway, I didn't think that justifies me to put them to that trouble. [Email #2] >From R' Micha Berger: > R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel Neustadt from torah.org > : >: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted >: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited >: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable > Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would > be okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM > trips and other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when > reading this -- need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah > garua) on ChM? In "Chol Hamoed" by Rabbi Dovid Zucker and Rabbi Moshe Francis, they write on pages 8-9: : There are some restrictions which are applicable on Shabbos and : Yom Tov but not on Chol HaMoed. Specifically, the following : prohibitions are not in effect on Chol HaMoed: : a) Hotzaah - the prohibition of transferring an item from a : private to a public domain or vice versa; also Haavarah, carrying : an article four cubits within a public domain. (There is a : dissenting view that Hotzaah is prohibited on Chol HaMoed.) : b) Techumin ... : c) Muktzeh ... : d) Mimtzo Cheftzcha V'daber Davar ... The footnote on Hotzaah is quite lengthy, so if you want to see the sources, please find the sefer, or I can send you a scan of the page. In any event, he *does* explain this exemption as due to "melacha garua", and also because even on Yom Tov itself we are so very lenient, and because there is no tircha involved. In fact, he adds that for these very same reasons, some poskim allow Hav'arah (lighting a fire, not to be confused with the Haavarah mentioned above) on Chol HaMoed "afilu shelo l'tzorech". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:10:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:10:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that > :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle > of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person > can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is > over the Holon cemetery (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, after all. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <7815eccf-626f-b116-e229-97479ba43675@sero.name> On 30/10/16 16:23, via Avodah wrote: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a > box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. Tum'ah does not go sideways, just up and down. Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave they can go right up to it. Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. He may also walk inside a human fence, consisting of people surrounding him and walking with him in the middle. That's what they used to do before they came up with the boxes. (Now there's a fenced path to the Ohel, so such methods are no longer needed.) (a human fence also works on Shabbos, so long as the people don't know they're being assembled for that purpose. Once they're all in position they can be informed that they are now a fence creating a reshus hayochid in the middle, and could they please all walk in lockstep so the person in the middle can carry.) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 30 20:54:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/10/16 15:41, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I > lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not > this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can > secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to > carry the key. No, there is no such machlokes. All opinions *permit* you to carry your house key, because you are not carrying it to prevent theft, you are carrying it to get back in to your house! You are confusing two very different things: why you locked the house and why you are carrying the key. It doesn't matter why you lock your house; the fact is that you did lock it, and therefore the key will serve the purpose of letting you back in. The only machlokes is about the safe key, for which you have no use at all on yomtov. You carry it with you for peace of mind; the MB says perhaps that itself is a valid yomtov use, but if you can get that peace of mind in some other way then there is no heter to carry the key. But when the key itself has a use there is no sevara to forbid carrying it, and no opinion that forbids it, even if you could achieve the same purpose without the key. How you choose to get in is your business, and you don't need a reason at all, let alone a good one. As I wrote the first time, the position being proposed would imply that you may not carry a siddur to shul if there is a shul in your building where you could daven without carrying, or if there are siddurim at shul that you could use. It would also imply that even if the key is your only way to get back home, you may not carry it if you have no reason to go out in the first place. Both of these are absurd results. You may go out on yomtov, even for absolutely no reason at all, and you may still carry a key; you may go to any shul you choose, even if you have absolutely no reason to prefer it to another once, and you may carry anything you anticipate that you might want there. You are only forbidden to carry things you are certain not to have any use at all for -- and even those the MB is willing to permit if not having them will disturb your yomtov. >> Why don't you leave it at home, both on shabbos and yomtov, and let >> those people let you in? Obviously you have a reason, and thus a >> use for the key. Therefore there is not even a hava amina that you >> should not carry it on yomtov. > > There might have been more reasons, but I can only think of two now: They > might not hear me knocking, and even if they do hear me knocking, I don't > want to trouble them to come unlock the door. If that's enough of a need in your mind that it causes you to take the key, then by definition it's enough of a need to justify carrying it on yomtov, *even if* my argument above were not valid. There is no such thing as "not enough of a need"; *any* need is enough. But my main argument is that it wouldn't make a difference if you had *no* reason for taking the key, if it were a mere whim; it would still be permitted, because lepo'el you have a use for it, unlike the safe key for which you have no use. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 02:05:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:05:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not answering the question, just asking it. > > --Toby Katz There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted from somewhere: > When it comes to EY, the claim is that it is minhag Eretz Yisroel not > to put on Tefillen during Chol Moed. However, according to Rabbi > Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Z'L, Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger, and I am sure > others, there is no such thing as minhag EY. EY is a melting pot with > congregations having many different minhagim. > > Thus, to assert that one should not put on Tefillen, because one lives > in EY seems to me to be unjustified. Indeed, I am told that there > are people who live in Eretz Yisroel who put on Tefillen privately. > Furthermore, there are some minyanim in EY at which Tefillen are worn > publicly on Chol Moed. Ehrlau'er is one. My ONLY problem with the above is in the use of the word "thus". The author claims to have brought some evidence, and introduces his conclusion with the word "thus". But in my opinion, the author has not proven his point, because he does not explain what he mean by the word "minhag". On the one hand, he seems to say that it's not possible for there to be a unified "minhag EY", but his only evidence is the existence of other other congregations, each having their own minhag. For his argument to make sense, in my opinion, the author would have to explain the development of the minhag as followed in Rabbi Scheinberg's congregation, and the minhag as followed in Rabbi Hamburger's congergation, and then explain why that does not apply to EY in general. In other words, if they concede the validity of a Minhag Frankfurt, or a Minhag Lita, or a Minhag Bagdad, or whatever, surely they did not appear out of the blue, fully established, decreed by the sages of those places. Rather, they developed over time, based on the practices of the people and rabbis who lived in certain areas. Some of those practices were accepted and became part of the local minhag, and some were rejected, and I would like to believe that Rabbis Scheinberg and Hamburger have a shita that explains those rules. The fact that there are individuals who follow their own practices at home, and/or shuls which follow their own practices that differ from the other shuls in the area, does NOT disprove the existence of a local minhag. The fact that individuals or shuls that follow their own practice in private might actually *support* the local public minhag - or maybe they are wrong for going against the local minhag. RET wrote: > The vast majority of religious people in EY with almost all poskim > require everyone in EY to follow the minhagim of EY. R Hamburger has > been fighting this position for years claiming that the ancient > ashkenazi (German) minhagim are the most accurate and therefore they > should not change. And, as I have asked many times, what is the starting point for the definition of "ancient", and why does being ancient mean that it should not change? Just as one example, choose any piyut you like. Once a time it had not yet been written, so I ask, why was the minhag changed to include it? People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim >> sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of >> large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the >> carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. >> > > I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli > (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); > the bag is. There's something here I'm not getting, but I'm not going to say any more until I've seen some teshuvot inside. Any references are welcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:15:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: > As someone who lives in Israel, that is not a realistic alternative > to fly from Haifa to Cyprus. The dayanim who suggested it also live in Israel, and they seem to think otherwise. > We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't > findany flights from Haifa (HFA) to Larnaca (LCA) on Tue, Nov 1 Could they have meant to go to Cyprus by sea, and then fly from there? >> I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that was never repeated . Then there was the posek who recommended lighting chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks involved and that it is against all regulations. OTOH I looked at UP (ElAl cheap flights) and there do indeed seem to be flights every day. Other airlines also seem to have daily flights for about $100 each way. Obviously flying through Cyprus would add both time and cost to the trip. Again other poskim are more mekil on various grounds including the materials that modern planes are made of -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? Message-ID: As to cohanim on planes, in the shiur: Kohanim Flying in Plastic Bags by R' Aryeh Lebowitz - http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/792566/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-kohanim-flying-in-plastic-bags/ - he quotes Rav Schachter as saying that flying in a plane over a cemetery does not constitute hakravah for a cohen. Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 04:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: <8d2ca.4cb7ceb3.4547b0a6@aol.com> Message-ID: <8572067c-01c2-3fe5-4f18-6bd3794b5112@sero.name> On 31/10/16 05:05, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There were pictures on social media a year or two ago of kohanim > sitting in a plane on the flight path to or from TLV wearing a sort of > large cardboard carton. It eludes me how if this solves the problem the > carpet on the floor and ulphostery on the seat of the plane do not. I've seen pictures of a plastic bag, not a cardboard box. A sealed keli (tzomid posil) blocks tum'ah. The plane is not (according to most poskim); the bag is. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 05:00:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke suggested: > Maybe Kohanim should have to check teh flight path and ensure that they > aren't going to be flying over a cemetery. There are quite a number of > Jewish cemetaries in Europe. I see many practical problems with this idea. First, I don't know how to obtain such a map. All of the "flight path" maps that I've seen merely show the start and end points, with a pretty line connecting them and has no relation to the actual path flown. And even if it would be accurate, it is not sufficiently detailed to tell whether you're going directly over the cemetery, or perhaps a mile to the side of it. Second, even if such flight path maps exist, I doubt that government security agencies would allow the public to access them. Third, even if you got such maps, you might know where the largest 10% of Jewish cemeteries are, but not the smallest 90%. And even if one could solve all the above, remember that airline routes are not like trains and buses. Once you've left the immediate vicinity of the airport, the traffic controllers can put you on any of several specific lanes, several miles apart, rendering all your research worthless for this issue. If anyone has a greater knowledge of current aviation practices, and can correct me on this, please do so. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 08:00:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:00:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Original Sin Message-ID: <1477926059262.70649@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 3.19 By the sweat of your countenance shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Great importance is attached to the following further observation: The Divine judgment directs a curse at the earth and at the serpent, but this judgment contains not a hint of a curse against man. Man is not cursed in any way. Nothing was changed in man's lofty calling or in his ability to fulfill it. Only the external conditions, only the stage on which he is to fulfill his mission, have been changed - and even this happened only for his own good. The mission itself, his Divine calling and his ability to fulfill it, have not changed one iota. To this day, every newborn infant emerges from God's hand in purity, as did Adam in his time; every child comes into the world as pure as an angel, to live and become a man. This is one of the cardinal points in the Torah of Israel and in Jewish life. But what a miserable and hopeless picture of man is drawn by those who err and deny his purity. On the basis of the story of Gan Adin, they have concocted a lie that undermines the moral future of mankind. We are referring to the dogma of "original sin," on the basis of which they have built a spiritual structure against which the Jew must protest with every fiber of his being. It is true that, on account of the sin in the Garden of Eden, all of Adam's descendants inherited the task of living in a world that no longer smiles at them as it once did, but this is so only because this same sin is still being committed over and over again. However, the express purpose of the present conflict between man and earth and of man's resultant "training by renunciation" is to guide man toward moral perfection, which will pave the way for his return to Paradise. But to say that because of "original sin" sinfulness is innate in man, that man has lost the ability to be good and is now compelled to sin - these are notions against which Judaism raises its most vigorous protest. Man as an individual and mankind as a whole can, at any time, return to God and to Paradise on earth. Toward this end, man needs no medium other than devotion to duty, which is within the capacity of every human being. Toward this end, there is no need for an intermediary who has died and then been resurrected. This is attested to by all of Jewish history, from which we learn that, in subsequent generations God drew as near to men of purity as He did to Adom Ha Rishon before the sin. Avraham, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and others like them attained God's nearness simply by their faithfulness to duty. The first principle of Judaism - the one, free God - goes hand in hand with the second principle, namely, the pure and free man. The dogma of original sin is a most regrettable error of an alien faith. They think that, in consequence of this sin, sinfulness is innate in man, and that man can be saved from the curse of sin, only by virtue of the belief in a certain fact. In the story of Gan Adin, however, there is no mention of a curse against man. To this day, every Jew avows before God: "The soul that you have given me is pure," and it is up to me alone to keep it pure and to return it to You in its original state of purity. As our Sages teach us: There is no age in which people like Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe, and Shemuel do not live" (Bereshis Rabbah 56:7). In every age, in every generation, man is capable of ascending to the highest levels of morality and spirituality. Let us also note: The earth was cursed for man's sake; and as man's degeneration increased, so did the curse upon the earth. The earth as it is today is not the same as it was in the past or as it will be in the future. Accordingly, any analogy between the earth's present condition and its condition at the time of its creation is unfounded and is based on a false premise. To refine and elevate earthly life, and bring life near to God and to His Presence - that is the essence of God's Torah and the essence of the Divine rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tannaitic transmission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031164418.GB20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:42:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The gemara in makot (15b-top) has an exchange between R'Yochanan and a : Tanna (whose job it was to memorize tannaitic material)... R' Yochanan was a first generation amorah. Being a talmid of Rebbe's since before the closing of the mishnah. I think "tanna" still meant literally "he who repeats" in that era, and only came to refer to the ones whose words tended to be the things repeated much later. ... : My other thought was that the tanna's transmission was true and it : reflected the earlier generation's surety concerning the halacha in the : endpoint cases, but lack of surety with the halacha in the in-between : case and thus they recorded the agreed upon halachot and left the : middle case unadjudicated. Perhaps R'Yochanan was saying it was time : to finalize the adjudication according to his opinion. Thoughts? Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Bavli and the Y-mi is that the Bavli is willing to interpolate what an earlier source would have said, must have meant, etc... whereas the Y-mi would just leave such questions unanswered. (Instead, Y-mi shaqla vetarya is about comparing and ontrasting two dinim -- why does X hold here and not there? if X holds there, we should assume it would work here too! and the like.) We say that R' Yochanan and RL compiled the Y-mi, but if that were true there would only be one generation of Israeli amoraim. Perhaps they started the process of making a talmud, the way Abayei and Rava started something which much later ended up R' Ashi and Ravina's Bavli (which then got further editing...) But in any case, if we use the Y-mi as an indicator of R Yochanan's style, who would have cared more about preserving the mesorah, and quoting the statement unmodified. I would therefore guess that if he is deciding how the quote should be repeated, he isn't merely changing the din, he is asserting that was how it was originally said. It's a guess based on the feel of Israeli amoraic culture. Could well be wrong. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kima In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031163507.GA20457@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Everything I can find online identifies Kima, mentioned in Amos and : Iyov (and later, in the Gemara), as the Pleiades. But I can't find : any source that explains how that identification was made. Does : anyone know why it's assumed that Kima is the Pleiades? R Saadia Gaon translates it al turayya, which would be the Pleiades. The Bedouins still use the name. Kima. IE (Amos 5:8) cites this (not besheim omero) and rejects it, saying kima is Aldebaran (the left eye in Taurus). Shemuel (Berekhoas 58a) describes kima as a cluster of "kemei'ah" stars, some say they are close together, some say they are not. Iyov 9:9 refers to "as, kesil vekhimah", and Amos also has "kumah ukhesil", so we know the names of things in its neighborhood. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:56:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> So the idea of kefeilah, lekhol hadei'os, is not that ta'am means :> biological taste. Every shitah has a role for bitul beshishim. And since :> biological taste is part of psychological ta'am, this combination of :> ratio and experiment fits psychology more than biology. : No, not really. Given that the kefeilah is a human who puts the food in his : mouth and comments on that experience, ta'am certainly does mean biological : taste.. Well, but then bitul beshishim wouldn't override taste nor would taste override 1:60 -- none of the rishonim would make sense. But what I meant was that the kefeilah is a case of psychology. Nothing creates the expectation of taste as a witnesses's report that it actually has one. Then the rishonim debate if this is in addition to 1:60, or is 1:60 is when we would doubt the report, etc... ... : POSTSCRIPT: In my learning on this topic, I was surprised to find that some : important data points are not logical or philosophical) svaros, but come : from the world of Gezeras Hakasuv. I had long known that in the story of : Klei Midian (B'midbar 31:22-23), HaShem explicitly tells us that metal can : be kashed via libun or hag'alah. What I learned only recently is that there : is a pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) that teaches us that pottery can*not* be : kashered. I saw this in Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Kosher Kitchen" : (ArtScroll) pg 339, based on Pesachim 30b. These Gezeros Hakasuv suggest : several things to me. (1) Klei Midyan explicitly name iron as one of the : metals that need to be kashered, and stainless steel is mostly iron; I : wonder how absorbency experiments can override a d'Oraisa. (2) Similarly, : glass *is* made of sand; to say that it is a new material, unrelated to the : earthenware the the Torah says is unkasherable, seems quite innovative. Except htat (1) Stainless steel is exactly that -- *mostly* iron, and that alloying is part of why it holds on to less product than cast iron would. Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could need kashering after Jewish use. If the two correlate, that correlation is not gezeiras hakasuv. (2) Similarly, glass is melted dust, not dust and water (and other things to harden the clay) baked until dry. The question is whether or not they are close enough to the base cases in the pasuq to be included in the gezeiras hakasuv or not. Given the ubiquituity of the concept of nosein ta'am, it would seem that Chazal saw the edges of these categories defined by how they hold on to ta'am. In fact, the AhS (YD 120:24,25) concludes that Chazal decided glass is therefore like metal, not pottery. WRT kashrus, tevilas keilim, tum'ah vetaharah. Sand melted into one lump is more like a nugget of ore (also found in the ground) than like pottery. And, like metal, both have tziruf be'eish. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 09:15:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:31:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Now suppose an adult gives his lulav to a child, clearly and expressly : invoking that it is a Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir. It appears to me that the : child is halachically incapable of fulfilling the tenai, so the gift is : never chal to begin with... The procedure has the advantage that : the exact same words are said regardless of whether the recipient is an : adult or a child. : : (I do realize that there's a side problem, regarding Mitzvas Chinuch, : because if the child doesn't own it, then the child is not doing the : mitzvah properly, so how is the parent doing Chinuch? This is dealt with in : the second half of MB 658:28.) A different chinukh problem -- one of teaching choshein mishpat. I could just picture these children growing up mistakenly thinking that a qatan can be maqneh. "After all, didn't we participate in a matanah al menas lehachzir every year when we were kids?" And in general, there may be midevar sheqer tirchaq issue in encouraging people to give something they are calling a matanah because we know the matanah won't be chal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:23:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 30/10/16 07:25, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> As we have have pointed out in the past numerous poskim state that >> :ma-shehu" on Pesach should not be taken literally, i.e. a nano particle >> of chametz is not prohinted. Similarly tumah rises as far as a person >> can see with a naked eye. One woulkd need to check how high the plane is >> over the Holon cemetery > > > (a) Planes can be seen with the naked eye even at cruising altitude, if the > weather permits. (b) Even if that were not so, surely it's beyond all > question that planes taking off from NTBG and flying over Holon can be > easily and clearly seen from the ground. It's only ten km from takeoff, > after all. I spent some time today looking at ADS-B data broadcast by airplanes departing LLBG. Two things that may be of interest: 1. Altitude when passing near the cemetery is under 4000 feet. All commercial airlines are easily visible at that height (and identifiable). You can use Google earth to get a feeling for what the cemetery looks like from that height, but's it's not that small. 2. Of the ten planes whose tracks I checked, 7 of them reported passing outside of the cemetery's boundary, whereas 3 overflew it. Note, however, that the planes that did not fly over the cemetery passed within 100 feet of it, which means that (a) the wings may have overflown it (is that a halachic problem?) and (b) we're getting very close to the tolerances of the GPS and its reporting. Please do NOT take this to mean that it is safe for a kohen to board a flight just because it looks like many flights do not, technically, fly over the cemetery. (I've tried to set up a bit of logging to see if I can get some more data; we'll see if it works). Note that this route is fairly restricted for a pilot. Flying further south is not an option, as there is a reserved training area just south of the cemetery (the "channel" is a few hundred feet wide). Flying north of the cemetery would overfly Bat Yam, which I strongly suspect is undesirable from a noise standpoint (obviously both of these problems could be theoretically be solved, and I'm not taking a stand on whether this is insensitivity to kohanim; just pointing out that it's not trivial). -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh (also home of the #1 contributor to FlightAware's ADS-B collection https://flightaware.com/adsb/stats/user/mikeage#stats-21920 and one of the top contributors to FlightRadar24) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:32:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah > first not everyone agrees with the psak of R Karelitz. Among the reasons > are precisely that perhaps tumah does not really go on "forever". In > addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the > curvature of the earth? [--RET] What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. -- Zev Sero >>>>> At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" even /mean/? The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. It's not obvious to us, partly because our atmosphere moves right along with our planet. So when we look up we might see a nice puffy cloud or two that may seem to be right above our heads. The clouds are not racing backwards at a thousand miles an hour, they're moving with us. But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is such that it twirls you around. Above your head is let's say a transparent canopy. No matter which way you are twirled the canopy remains "above" you. But the sights you can see through the canopy change every second so that at one moment the sky is above you and then the grass is "above" you and then the horizon is "above" you. Maybe you can see some mountains in the distance or the seashore, and as you twirl, now the mountains and now the beach are "above" you, as seen through the transparent canopy which is the only thing that is indubitably above you as your cabin spins. It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:50:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I severely doubt the dayanim looked at flight schedules. Sorry to say I > have not always found some poskim knowledgeable of reality. I still > recall the cohen who wrapped himself in plastic. As far as I know that > was never repeated . What's your problem with that? Why should it not be repeated if necessary? (IIRC it was an emergency psak, the kohen's flight had been diverted, and he had no other way of getting home before Pesach.) > Then there was the posek who recommended lighting > chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:51:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:56:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < chanukah candles on a plane for a short time not withstanding the risks > involved and that it is against all regulations. > I personally know someone who asked the crew's permission, which was readily granted; she lit openly in the galley, with full pirsumei nissa, and has the photos to prove it. >> No problem with the crew's permission (though it seems to be against regulations) The psak I saw said explicitly to light without permission and to put it out when the crew demands it > > -- > Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack > zev at sero.name but please come back once more > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:59:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161114.GA15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <983c0505-f152-3798-9810-47b43ff6d696@sero.name> On 31/10/16 12:11, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, kelei Midyan is about tevilas keilim, not kashering. They require > the miqvah even if they were never used before; just as something could > need kashering after Jewish use. The pasuk is explicitly about kashering: "Whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then clean it in a mikveh, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through [boiling] water." Whether it is *also* about tevilas kelim is AIUI a machlokes rishonim; some hold that tevilas kelim is midrabanan, and the pasuk is only an asmachta. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 10:53:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:53:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8872b688-f75c-e46a-f2c3-93e3f423f09d@sero.name> On 31/10/16 13:32, via Avodah wrote: > Zev Sero wrote: >> R Eli Turkel wrote: >>> In addition to questions about the moon how about accounting for the >>> curvature of the earth? [--RET] >> What about it? How is it relevant? at any given point in the >> universe, you are either above a grave or you are not. > At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and > "below" even /mean/? No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. At least until we reach the point where relativistic curvature of space-time becomes significant. > The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation > around its axis surely is. No, it isn't. All it means is that objects not in a geosynchronous orbit are constantly moving over the earth, passing over different points at different times, exactly as if they were in a plane or a car, or even walking. > But how far out in space is this true? Forever. Why is this surprising? What basis do you have for supposing otherwise? > If you were standing in a > graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean > that a kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah > from the cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the > course of the night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) When it is not above the grave there is no problem. When it is there is. If a kohen knows that every 24 hours it passes above a grave, then of course he may not go there. I fail to see why anyone could have a problem with this. > So now where is "up"? Where is "above"? Where it's always been. How is this harder to understand than a person who "flies" in a bus at an altitude of about one metre? > I could also pose the problem a different way. Let's say you're on a > ride in an amusement park, some kind of Tilt-a-Whirl, and the ride is > such that it twirls you around. [...]. As you say, you are *moving*. Thus what is above you changes constantly, just like anyone else who is moving. > It seems to me that the atmosphere, like that transparent canopy, must > be the limit of "above" a grave. (How high? I don't know.) Otherwise > all of outer space in every direction is "above" us as we spin! No, only one direction is above you. We just finished sukkos, when we demonstrated the concept of six directions. Have we already forgotten? :-) -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:30:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Rothke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly / What about Beth David cemetery? In-Reply-To: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> References: <2d865af0-5bf2-f84c-f3d3-5f6ae638345e@sero.name> Message-ID: Yes, but there are 4 runways at JFK 04R/22L 04L/22R 13R/31L 13L/31R About ? of all flights use 13R/31L. With that, it remains, a sofek d'orisa. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: On 31/10/16 08:55, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > Also, anyone who spends more than 5 minutes at Beth David cemetery in > Long Island will see (and hear) planes landing. With that, wouldn't that > be a issue also for cohanim coming into JFK? > Not all planes pass directly over the cemetery. If they did, then it would indeed be a problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:29:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. > Is this allowed on shabbat? > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/31/run-for-it-smart-fabric-generates-electricity-when-move.html I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems. So if going about ones normal business while wearing this clothing doesn't do any of those things, then I can't see the problem. What you do with the clothing after Shabbos is your business. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:54:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chaim Tatel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:54:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" I would venture to say it's OK. The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) discusses the issue of whether one is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, given the possibility that he may uproot blades of grass in the process, unintentionally violating the prohibition of "Tolesh" ? uprooting plants on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch (336:3) writes that one may, in fact, walk on grass on Shabbat, because Halacha follows the view of Rabbi Shimon who allows performing an act on Shabbat that might result in an unintentional Melacha (forbidden activity). So long as it is not certain that the Melacha will result from the given action, one may perform that action despite the possibility of a Melacha occurring as a result. Therefore, one may walk on Shabbat over grass of any kind, whether it is moist or dry. One may even walk on grass while barefoot, despite the fact that grass might stick to his feet and thus be detached from the ground. It should be noted, however, that if grass does stick to one's feet, he may not remove it by hand, since the grass is considered Muktzeh (forbidden to be handled on Shabbat). He is allowed to shake the grass off or rub his foot against a surface to remove it, but he may not remove it with his hand. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. Chaim Tatel, Outer Golus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:35:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> On 10/31/2016 8:29 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 31/10/16 13:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. >> Is this allowed on shabbat? ... > I don't think anyone has a problem on Shabbos with electricity itself. > It's *doing* things with electricity that raises various problems... I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:04:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 11:52:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:32:37PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : At any given point in the universe, what do the words "above" and "below" : even /mean/? Well, if the meis was buried on earth, this question is relatively easily answered. Lemaalah appears to be defined relative to the center of the earth, so above and below desribe a wedge that is a point at the center of the planet, has a cross-section that is the neis, and gets wider as it goes up, to stay a constant fraction of an ever larger oblate spheroid. IOW, all points in lines that run from the center of the earth through the meis and are beyond the meis on that line segment would be lemaalah of it. But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? : The curvature of the earth may not be relevant but the earth's rotation : around its axis surely is. Our planet is rotating at a rate of about a : thousand miles an hour. It's also moving around the sun at about 66,000 miles : an hour.. So what's releavant is the airplane's location relative to the meis. ... : But how far out in space is this true? If you were standing in a : graveyard and you looked up and saw, say, Orion's belt, would that mean that a : kohen could not travel to one of Orion's stars because the tumah from the : cemetery extends all the way UP to those stars? But no, in the course of the : night, Orion moves! (Well, our planet moves.) So now where is "up"? Where : is "above"? So then a kohein couldn't be on any planetary body that passes a point over a meis while the kohein is there. Yes, that would be tough. More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. But we would need proof; my personal preferences are unsupported. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74f824af7d004be9a63d82fa256804cf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Eli Turkel asked: "one can create electricity on ones clothing by running. Is this allowed on shabbat?" Depends on your sevara for the seeming bat kol which said electricity is forbidden on Shabbat and how quickly you think it will be reevaluated. I?d say probably not an issue in this case according to most authorities IF there is no intent (e.g. storage for later use). However if you are a molid believer then perhaps even this could be an issue (R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Beit Yitzchak, Hashmatot to Y.D. 2:31, is of the opinion that completing a circuit constitutes a violation of molid, the prohibition against imbuing an object with a new property.) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:22:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:22:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> References: <20161031185252.GA29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6725001c-caeb-b4df-6513-19c513cdfc5b@sero.name> On 31/10/16 14:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > But what if the person were buried on Mars. Would "above" be a wedge > starting at the center of Mars? Or would it be defined by the rapidly > changing line from the middle of the earth? How geocentric are we? Lich'ora we are very geocentric. Everything in Torah seems to support such a view. This is the Eretz where man was created and the Torah was given, and where the Machon Leshivtecha is located. Thus it is the privileged point of view from which the rest of the universe is to be regarded. > More likely RET is correct, and someone so far above the source of > tum'ah that the human eye can't see it isn't tamei. Just because > that seems consistent to me with halakhah in general. Then no grave should be tamei because the body is covered and thus invisible. It seems to me that the rule that invisible things are treated as non-existent applies only to things that are invisible in themselves, not merely invisible to you because of your distance, just as we don't apply it if they're merely invisible to you because of your blindness, or because your eyes are closed, or because it's dark. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 12:52:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: From: Zev Sero via Avodah No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on that line's infinite extension. -- Zev Sero >>>> I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you -- even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars and you? Or would it always be the extended line from the center of earth, no matter where else in the universe you were? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:16:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:16:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Don't Lubavitcher kohanim go to the cemetery wearing some kind of a box? > Why wouldn't being in an enclosed airplane be the same thing? Not > answering the question, just asking it. > --Toby Katz This is a also the issue. There is a complicated sugya about whether an Ohel Zaruk (a moving tent) is considered a tent. It intersects with the issue of a dead body in the underbelly of a plane while a cohen is above. It also depends on whether there is requisite distance between a coffin (in chutz looretz or on a plane). I have diagrams from the Posek of El Al of how to put a coffin into another container. The Matzeiva is also an issue and whether it forms a barrier. The composition of new metals on the plane. I once learned all this and was convinced there were enough mitigating tziruf of heterim. I needed to accompany a body that was being reinterred in Israel and I'm a Cohen. Moro Vrabbi Rav Schachter did not allow me bit was lenient if a cohen flies over graves. My memory just recalled an absolutely brilliant response from rav Itzeleh volozhiner where his logic seems impeccable to permit. I think I discussed it with Rav Schachter who told me that in general Rav itzeleh's Psokim as good as they were and wonderful to learn were not accepted. This was years ago and my memory is flakey. I may have some emails where i discuss with other Rabonim before asking for the Psak from Rav Hershel. In summary, he allowed travel over, but not travel IN a plane if you know lechatchilla there is a body on board. I hope I didnt misquote Rav Schachter! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:26:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161031202614.GA25074@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :> No matter where in the universe you are, you are above every point on a :> line that extends between you and the centre, and below every point on :> that line's infinite extension. : I don't believe there is any halachic source that defines "above" this : way. Anyway, center of what? A line between the center of earth and you... Well, if the line is at the center of earth, then that's the definition we all use when we use "lemaalah" in the naive sense of "away from the earth, toward the sky". Just made more rigorous. : even if you're standing on a distant planet or star? Maybe if you went to : Mars, "above" would be the extension of a line between the center of Mars : and you? ... Interesting question, but it doesn't need to be answered in order to address the airplane question. The difference between airplanes and a kohein in a cart riding over a body is one of degree. And, of course, whether the invisibility of a meis due to distance and apparent size is more like something that is invisibly small at any distance, or more like something that is blocked from view. If the former, the airplane is beyond a quatitative line that the cart is not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:18:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter D. Static Electricity Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is not universally accepted. As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: > : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh. > > I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in > electonics itself, but what you're doing with it. > > I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had > I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is > boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq > reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered > stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise. > > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and > is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos. > If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter, > and why would it be muqtzah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of > micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, > http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:28:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in sherry casks (which he permits). He asis where is there a precedent for Nosen Taam that takes 8-21 years in Shas to occur. He clearly subscribes to the Halachic mesora based approach of Psak and not chemistry. He does however also address the issue of those experts who can discern the taste in blind tests. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 13:47:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> References: <2C06F8AA-1BE4-49EC-8B99-1B06A608C88A@balb.in> Message-ID: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : On the issue of Kefeilah and Nosen Taam and bitul there is an interesting : comment from Rav Usher Weiss in his Shaylos and Tshuvos on whisky in : sherry casks... I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:34:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > From http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm > by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter > > D. Static Electricity .... > Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this > regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment > and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these > sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of > the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the > creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor... ... > As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to > store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's > heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold.... R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and elongated supercapacitors. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: <45887944-613e-4803-6770-070a1f65bafd@starways.net> <20161031190400.GC29773@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161031220156.GC22437@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote: : R. Waldenberg's senif that "there is no precedent for these sparks in the : labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle" ... I presume the ZE means that unlike historical cases like sparks thrown by a burning object, electrical sparks are no glowing substance; there is no material glowing. Sparks in a smith's forge are really tiny gechalos shel mateches. It's only nitzotzos by homonym. : presumably still applies to solar cells, triboelectric nanogenerators, and : elongated supercapacitors. That would have to be proven casewise. Eg no one ran electricity through a wire until it glowed, but it's still a gacheles shel mateches. I still think what you waid was true, since the ZE doesn't hold of molid, he would presumably have no problem with any of those, nor batteries. But I wanted to highlight a skipped step. (I was primarily posting to explain what I think the ZE means by emphasizing the lack of parallel in building the mishkan.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 14:34:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Winokur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:34:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks Message-ID: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Does anyone have any specific aviation technical information regarding the change at Ben Gurion airport that triggered the ruling? Any change in flight path or runway use must be reflected in a NOTAM [Notice to Airmen] and would involve one or more specific SID [Standard Instrument Departure] procedures. A list of departure charts can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=278 Active NOTAMS can be found at http://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=468&Itemid=331 Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways 12 or 21. Runway 21's SID is known as PURLA 1G, and takes aircraft over a point "SIX" at 31? 59? 38? N 034? 46? 19? E and then on a heading of 282? which runs right over the middle of the Holon cemetery. What puzzles me is that the MERVA departure from runway 26 does the same thing. Runway 12 which is still open has a SOLIN SID that avoids the area entirely. AIUI, kohanim currently fly based on a safek over which runway/SID will be used. If so, it appears that safek is still in place as there is still an open runway with a departure route that avoids the area. Also, as R' Mike Miller noted, large aircraft don't turn on a dime and there should also be a safek as to whether any given airplane will actually pass over the Holon cemetery or will miss it. So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? -- Gil Winokur gilwinokur at usa.net From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:45:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:00 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa Message-ID: R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa [used by the Kosher certification agencies to not rely upon Bittul where the non-Kosher component is deliberately added - itself a distortion of the RaShBa] because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is an inadvertent mixture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 15:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent explains this to the child. Something along the lines of "You're still learning how to do it, so even if you only do this much, that's great." I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial Birkas Hamazon. An adult who would do such things is clearly not fully yotzay, even b'dieved, but for kids it is acceptable, and one can find many other examples. So perhaps it is fine for a katan to use a borrowed lulav even on the first day (just as an adult can use it on Chol HaMoed)? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 16:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:31:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos: uprooting grass, motion sensors lights, opening refrigerators Message-ID: R E Turkel wrote re electric sparks on Shabbos - The Gemara in Masechet Eruvin (100) ...... Paskened in the Shulchan Aruch (336:3) that one may walk on grass during Shabbat because Rabbi Shimon permits activities, where there is no intent to perform Melacha even if it may result in a Melacha (forbidden activity). One may even walk barefoot, despite the greater likelihood of uprooting the grass from the ground. see http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1088 for more info. This is true but it misses the broader picture - when we have no benefit from the Melacha, Lo Nicha Leih - the action is not defined as Melacha altogether. It's even less than Eino Tzericha LeGufo. Tearing grass out of the ground is not an issue unless there is some benefit even though there is no intent. The imagery of dragging a table or chair across the garden and making a furrow - the classic illustration of Davar SheEin MisKavein - requires some clarification - does this occur in the middle of a moonless night or is it a blindfolded person who is pulling the chair; I mean why not turn around and have a look to see if in fact there is a Charits, a furrow in the ground?? Obviously, there is no need to observe if a furrow is being dug because even though he benefits if there will be a furrow [unlike our gardens where it would be deemed to be MeKalKel - destructive] he is not intending to make a furrow. So in essence the Halacha says we do not care if there is a constructive useful furrow dug by your dragging as long as that is not your intention you may leave your blindfold in place. But if we actually SEE the furrow being dug, we must stop. When I say we, I mean the fellow doing the action - I dont think bystanders need concern themselves with the digging if they see it. WHY because he actually benefits from that furrow. Now, activating a motion sensor light during Shabbos is permitted by almost all Poskim, IF we are walking down the street and do not intend to activate the light, even though we KNOW the light is there and WILL BE activated, because we get no real benefit from the Melacha. Indeed, if we are cautiously inching along a dark path and a light is activated [even by a G in order to assist us and we did not ask or allude for assistance] we must shut our eyes. WHY because it's Lo Nicha Leih - we get nothing out of the Melacha, we can walk quite comfortably even when the light is not activated; UNLIKE the case of dragging the chair and making the useful furrow. AS A THEORETICAL QUERY - It follows that in a well illuminated kitchen, where all items in the refrigerator can be readily identified and selected even when the refrigerator light is NOT ACTIVATED, there ought to be no reason why one who has not deactivated his refrigerator light may not open the fridge during Shabbos? JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 17:25:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly, from Ben Gurion for the next few weeks In-Reply-To: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> References: <1c5d7d8d-05fa-04aa-9699-0a6cfc3c6344@usa.net> Message-ID: <5088e437-f887-160f-c315-5fcde26e395f@sero.name> On 31/10/16 17:34, Gil Winokur via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone provide a NOTAM number and the affected SID? As I read the > active NOTAMS, the only matching one is A0734/16, which reads as follows: > A0734/16 1611010001 to 1611172159 RWY INT 08/12 CLSD, DUE WIP. RWY 21 > AVBL FOR LDG AND TKOF. RWY 12 AVBL FOR TKOF FM W4. > Simply put, because of construction, the intersection of runways 8 and > 12 is closed. That also closes runway 26 (facing west) which includes > that intersection to be closed, forcing all takeoffs to be from runways > 12 or 21 > [...] > So what changed that resulted in this psak being issued? This is definitely the notice in question, since the dates match exactly. Now you say that runway 26, which is closed for those 17 days, goes over the cemetery, and runway 12, which remains open, doesn't. It appears that the beis din was given the opposite information. If your info is correct then someone with access to the beis din should inform them, both so they correct the psak and so they get better sources of information in future. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 21:03:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > Kohanim are not allowed within four amos of an unfenced grave, lest > they step over it, but if there's a fence between them and the grave > they can go right up to it. Okay, I can understand that part. > Thus a kohen may walk in a cemetery if he is carrying a fence around > himself that separates him from the graves he passes between. This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but it's not much good as a ma'akeh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:08:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: Here is a link to an article in the RJJ Journal Volume 15 Tumeah of a Kohen: Theory and Practice http://download.yutorah.org/1988/1053/735713.pdf which touches on this issue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 31 20:53:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, > and is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after > Shabbos. If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli > shemelakhto leheter, and why would it be muqtzah? In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - preparation for after Shabbos. If one has some sort of device that uses this battery, and the device can be used on Shabbos, then you've avoided this problem of hachana, but you've introduced a different problem, that of repairing. In other words, charging such a device is at least as problematic as winding a mechanical watch that has stopped. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, there's a difference between a watch that has run down and stopped (which is now considered broken, and winding it would be a forbidden repair), and wind-up spring-powered toys. The normal use of such toys is to wind them up, play for a while, and the spring runs down; because this is the normal pattern, the powered-down spring is not considered broken, and so winding it on Shabbos is not a forbidden repair. If the device you're powering with this shirt is similar to a watch, then you've got problems. But if it is more like the toys, then maybe there's a slim chance that the shirt might be okay for Shabbos power. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 02:50:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:50:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:45:00AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha wrote that RMF proves that nosein ta'am is not an issue for stam : yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish - one part wine to : 6 parts water is easily tastable. : : One doesn't need bitul, because the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. IM YD 1:62-63. The question was sent to him by REMT's father, R Pinchas Teitz. Someone in Elizabeth started a kosher whiskey business. RMF's answer was that it wasn't necessary mei'iqar hadin, but tavo alav berakhah since he aids the ballei nefesh who should still avoid such whiskey. Oh, and the 1:6 is the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13. : It seems that Reb Moshe disagrees with the RaShBa ... : because the RaShBa's argument is that Chazal made their decrees in order to : promote social isolation and therefore it makes no sense to propose that if : the component is below a certain thresh-hold it should be Battel - the : decree must follow the purpose and apply in all circumstances unless it is : an inadvertent mixture. I'm missing something. RMF is saying it's not bitul, but a liquid that isn't yayin and therefore not subject to the gezeira. How can that statement contradict a rule in the Rashba about bitul? Does the Rashba explicitly include the case where intentionally added thing is stam yeinam? (Where RMF may be holding like someone other than the Rashba is in YD 2:41.) The OU describes how they understand and implement this pesaq at Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:12:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed, Metal Pots, RMF Wine 1:6, Teshuvas HaRaShBa In-Reply-To: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> References: <20161101095015.GB25204@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMF Paskens like the Rama against the SA -- YD 134:13 (Yet he still encourages, Tavo Alav Beracah, since he aids the BsAlei Nefesh who avoid such whiskey - truly irrelevant but why not chuck it in?) The RaShBa holds that wine is NEVER Battel, it never loses its identity as wine because although by normal Halacha there is Bittul, in this case where Chazall promulgated this to promote social isolation, it MAKES NO SENSE (this is the RaShBa's own idea, he finds support from the way he learns the Sugya of Gevinas Alum) to propose that there should be Bittul unless it is an inadvertent mixture. When RMF explains that at 1:6 it's not Yayin, that means it's Battel, it's lost it's identity. Had RMF subscribed to the RaShBa, there would be nothing to consider - the point is, it is incumbent to retain the social isolationist policy. The Rashba explicitly discussed the case where wine is intentionally added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:03:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is carrying : it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a grave? : : A portable fence might be effective in establishing distinct reshuyos, but : it's not much good as a ma'akeh. This was a recent AhS Yomi for me, see AhS YD 371:27 (wikisource.org). I would think ma'akeh is an overstatement; we are relying on the kohein's awareness, the marker need not make his approach harder. I say that because either a fence or a trench -- of any width -- would allow a kohein to come within 4 tefachim of the qever instead of 4 amos. I wouldn't call a 1 etzba (or less) wide trench a "ma'akeh", it created the wrong implications (we need something that stops him) in my head. In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 06:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101101706.GD25204@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In your example, I would think that the battery charger would be an example : of an "assur device". I would imagine that a discernible amount of heat is : generated in this process. And even you can find a way to say that no : melacha happens when the battery is charging, it is still hachana - : preparation for after Shabbos. 1- I really doubt triboelectric clothing would generate enough power to produce heat you could feel. Even if you could combine it with solar cell clothes or those that use body heat to produce power (a news story in 2012). 2- Would it be hachanah even though you are still wearing the clothing as clothing? This touches on my fitbit question of a short while ago. Say you had a fitbit like device that posed no halakhic question other than this: After Shabbos you could push a button to see how far you walked or how well you slept. (A real fitbit has lights that you couldn't avoid turning on or off. A vivofit's display shuts off when not moving for a while -- but will go on as soon as you bring your hand up to look at the display. Etc... So this question is more hypothetical than real.) To my mind that's a strong hachanah case. Something we didn't raise then. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 03:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:28:19 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] more RaShBa Message-ID: In fact, that Mechaber, YD 134:13 IS THE RASHBA. See the BeEir HaGolah. The Rama there, simply explains that this RaShBa who prohibits ANY food for which the recipe calls for wine, no matter how small its proportion - is only true where it's not Pogem. The confusion emerges from the Mechaber who rules 134:5, that once you've got 6 parts water to 1 part wine, it's Battel. And this too is sourced from the RaShBa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 05:15:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:15:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity Message-ID: << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to these new clothing. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:13:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <> I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this question. They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. returning to running for electricty the article says "The objective was to harvest energy from our living environment, for example, human walking or muscle movement and fabric; the goal is to drive small electronics (eg a smartwatch or phone) So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. Similar to the fitbit even if it is technically allowed many poskim would forbid it as zilzul shabbat -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 10:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion Message-ID: <> First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points far away. In any case we agree that it is ridiculous to apply this to a cohen on the moon. What about a cohen astronaut in an orbit that passes "above" (whatever that means) the Holon cemetery. In this case one is out of sight looking from the ground up to the sky -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 11:41:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I asked both R Ariel chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and R Rosen of Tzomet this : question. : They both answered that technically it is permitted but it is zilzul : shabbat and they would only approve it for medical need. Okay, next case: When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable digital watch. (This is actually closer to the vivofit's reality, except that said watch goes dark when kept at rest for a long enough time. In which case, moving your wrist lights up LEDs... But let's stick to the imaginary example.) Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:29:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101184132.GA19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Okay, next case: > When you don't press the button, the pedometer is a perfectly usable > digital watch.... > Is it still zilzul Shabbos when you have a perfectly Shabbosdik reason > to wear the watch in addition to tracking one's walking? I can't answer for them but I would assume that it is OK -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 12:07:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : First I completely agree with Rbn Katz. My only point was the question : whether up is defined as a radius from the earth's center to the cemetery : and onwards or by some vertical to a plane on the earth's center. : Obviously for points nearby the difference is negligible but not for points : far away. I don't understand the latter possibility. Chazal don't talk about an up that fits the definition. Take a plane parallel to the tangent at Jerusalem. Now go far away, say to Pumbedisa. The trig ended up being over my head, but let's say the resulting proposed "up" would be 9 deg off from vertical. Wouldn't Shas have to had mention that fact that someone in a tree slightly to the west of a qever may be tamei? The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara assumes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 13:28:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:28:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> References: <20161101190714.GB19808@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The "line from the middle of the earth through the meis" definition of > lemaalah is the only definition I could think of that ends up with the > commonsensical (ignoring the earth's curvature) definition the gemara > assumes. I severely doubt that chazal knew enough about a spherical earth and its center. Again far away with Rbn Katz that the halacha doesn't apply. Within a distance of several amot which is what chazal was concerned the difference between the tangent plane and a curved earth is probably very small. I haven't done the math but have worked in meteorolgy. The standard model in meteorology for any local forecast is to use the tangent plane assumption. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 16:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b5f055a-28c8-e3b6-4e54-1854112e4f3a@sero.name> On 01/11/16 00:03, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This is the part I don't get. What good does the fence do if he is > carrying it? How does a portable fence insure that he won't step over a > grave? There's no chance that he'll step on a grave. Graves are well marked, and if he sticks to the path he won't step on them. A fence allows him to come within four amos of them. [Email #2. -micha] On 01/11/16 06:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In either case, I share your confusion about how a mobile wall would help. > You get the 2 reshuyos to allow it deOraisa, but you don't cover the > gezeira to avoid accidental negi'ah or ohel. Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part of him can be over it. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 19:01:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Melamed on Metal Pots In-Reply-To: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> References: <20161031204718.GD25074@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > I am lost. RMF makes a convincing argument that nosein ta'am is not an > issue for stam yeinam, such as sherry casks. His proof, bitul besheish. > One part wine to 6 parts water is easily tastable. > Leshitaso, 1:6 works because too much mezigah, and the mixture isn't > yayin -- as the gemara says WRT 4 kosos. One doesn't need bitul, because > the gezeira of stam yeinam doesn't apply. > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha Rav Weiss starts the Tshuva by saying that it has been shown to be permitted by many before him and expresses surprise why he is being asked. He then goes onto give some new reasons why it should be permitted. One of them is what I wrote: Where do we have a source for Nosen Taam, taking many years? Was that Chazal's definition too? According to Rav Weiss, throughout Shas, the Taam, happens "automatically" with the mixture. Now, I acknowledge his point, but I have trouble when the outcome (taste) is the same (even if it took 8 years to happen). Rav Weiss goes onto also argue that in blind tests, most people won't know the difference between whether there was ageing in a wine-based cask or not, as support for his view. I am somewhat of a whisky lover, and I feel that I could pass some blind tests, however, in one of the Shules I attended many years ago, the Gabbay used to keep some expensive bottles and pour blended cheap whisky in them. We used to have a rule. If it's an open bottle, don't trust what you are drinking :-) He was a holocaust survivor, so we didn't dare meddle in his kitchen lest he give us a Misheberach. It seems that the cRc are the main authority which investigates and has ruled that many whiskys (and other alcoholic beverages) are "not recommended" according to the list on their iPhone app which is regularly updated. The OU however seems to have stepped up to the plate by increasing the number of whisky's which are from plain casks and therefore have the OU stamp on them, so that those who want whiskys with a reliable Hechsher can purchase it. At home, I have "Mehadrin" whisky and if I host an event, I generally put that out. I do have sherry cask whisky, and will provide it for someone whose "nose is out of joint" when they see what is being offered. I haven't discussed this issue with Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter. Does anyone reliably know his personal opinion on the issue? In the OU itself, he and Rav Belsky z"l didn't always agree, but mostly they did. There is an internal Sefer at the OU with Tshuvos on the issues where they disagreed. The OU policy though is to go with the stricter opinion given that the OU is relied upon by many right across the spectrum. I think this is a good policy for a Kashrus organisation that wants to be trusted across the world by everybody. Tangentially, On a related issue, there is the question of Benedictine where there is also possibly added brandy. The LR used to have it on his table at Farbrengens and drink it. That then stopped. Rabbi Moshe Gutnick of Sydney, wrote to the company and tried to be 'Mesiach Lefi Toomo' or perhaps even more than that, by pretending he knew some people with an allergy to wine/wine derived/infused alcohol(e.g. by adding brandy) and asked Benedictine whether they could guarantee there was absolutely no wine used in production. I remember thinking that this was an issue that was Efshar Liverooray, and wondering why nobody seemed to actually do so. There was a rumour that Rav Lande of Bnei Brak allows it. I have not seen this in writing and therefore don't take it seriously. Here is what I have found out though. I found this OLD article http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Benedictine.php It seems to imply that Benedictine (*non B&B*) is okay. I have never had it (and I'm not a Lubavitcher :-) The cRc app on my iPhone doesn't list Benedictine. What is the ruling of the cRc and how does this relate to the article I posted? I do not understand why R Msika doesn't drink *non* B&B. Is this because of the cRc comments or is it because he only drinks Mehadrin with a Mashgiach at least Yotze VeNuchnas, or is it political, or a personal Chumra/Maris Ayin as they look similar. I was then advised by the cRc that they were revisiting Benedictine. I received a recent email which stated as follows: "We did some work on this a few months ago, but I honestly cannot remember what we found at the time. As I vaguely recall, *nothing had changed since the original article was written*, and we were going to stand by our original recommendation." If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret, I can't get my head around why Benedictine is still seemingly such a mystery story. In Melbourne, the central respected Kashrus Agency, Kosher Australia, under Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, which is trusted by the OU and the Badatz etc do not allow Benedictine (and he's a Lubavitcher). Yet, I see other Yeraim and Shleimim drink it. I just updated the cRc app database on my phone, and it says that *ALL B&B* liqueurs are not recommended. In addition it has a *separate* entry for Benedictine which also says Not recommended. Personally, I have never drunk Benedictine. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:39:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:39:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/11/16 14:13, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > So (1) there is positive intention to create and store electricity > (2) it might (in the future) be put into active use > > So again it would seem to me that it is more serious than the heter for > causing static electricity which has neither of these problems. > again, according to the material you cited about static the whole problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic. That problem, as far as we know, doesn't exist, so doesn't need a heter. How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 1 20:56:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] running creates electricity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a85c633-b9d7-0133-b78e-8597ee51f555@sero.name> On 01/11/16 08:15, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > << It's all about sparks, not electricity. Who mentioned sparks here? > What have they got to do with the topic? There's no mention of sparks > in the article, so why do you suppose they would exist? >> > > No there is no sparks that I know. My assumption was that this would be > worse than sparks since they have a long term effect. If part of the > heter for sparks is that they are not intended this would not apply to > these new clothing. You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion you cited. Who cares whether there is a long or short term effect? Who told you that this is at all a problem? The entire problem discussed there was sparks; some found a heter for the sparks, some didn't. But if there are no sparks then there is no problem in the first place, so there's no need for a heter. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:11:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Beth & David Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Bircat Cohanim Message-ID: After duchaning for the second time today, the following questions occurred to me: Why do we say Bircat Cohanim a second time for Musaf? In the BHMK didn't they only recite it once daily? Why do we say the bracha a second time? Can't we be have in mind the second duchaning when we say the bracha in Shacharit ans not say the bracha again in Musaf? David I. Cohen Yerushalayim (formerly of Stamford, CT) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 01:33:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Ashkenaz During Chol Moed Succos in EY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > In an earlier post R. Eli Turkel asked what those who put on Tefillen > during Chol Moed do regarding the leining for Chol Moed. Please see > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205777.pdf > If you scroll down to Succos you will see what Rabbi Hamburger says one > should do in EY during Chol Moed. Note what he says about Tefillen (and > the different minhagim regarding when to remove them) and the leining > during Chol Moed. > YL again R Hamburger is very much a daas yachid on this issue -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 03:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag Message-ID: I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during birkhat kohanim. One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. Nevertheless the overwhelming minhag is for the cohen's hands to be inside the tallit. A look at any picture of the mass birkhat cohanim at the kote show all the cohanim with hands under the tallit -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:05:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161102145808.GB4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1567e07b-b032-b477-2ffd-705aeff6df37@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:58, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : again, according to the material you cited about static the whole > : problem was sparks. Since there is no mention of sparks in the > : article, none of that discussion was relevant to our topic.. > > But they must be, somehow. This clothing is using the same effect as > making static electricity by rubbing one's feet on carpeting. Just here, > the electrons are not left static, and set in motion around a circuit. Why should that be a problem? The problem discussed over there is not the static electricity at all, but only the sparks that are created when it discharges. If there are no sparks (and the article we're discussing doesn't mention any) then the problem doesn't exist. *Other* problems may or may not exist, but the discussion about sparks sheds no light on that. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 07:55:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:55:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : Simple. He's walking on the path. But the path comes within four : amos of graves. Without a fence he might be maahil over a grave; : with a fence he's on one side, the grave is on the other, so no part : of him can be over it. 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now be above the grave". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) Hence the need for the fence. > 2- The portable ohel does nothing to help the kohein avoid walking on a > qever. The taqanah is that even with a demarkation around the grave and > a division into multiple reshuyos (a 4 foot wall or trench), the kohein > must stay 4 tefachim away. He has no demarkation saying "you would now > be above the grave". The path is his demarcation. So long as he's on the path he knows he's not walking over graves, nor is he within four tefachim of them. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 08:51:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 02/11/16 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : > 1- Today no one grinds their medicine either, but that law is still : > on the books. (If very less frequently applied.) : : Hence the need for the fence. But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim marking where the grave is. There is no such demarkation. The path doesn't have a 10 tefach border. So, while you take care of the reshus issue, and you took care of the risk the taqana was set up to address, one isn't really complying with the taqana. Unless one could show the taqana was only to have any demarkation, and the mention of 10 tefachim was to create another reshus only, as a totally different din. That is possibly true, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem with. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such a rare phenomenon. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:20:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:20:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Nissim Karelitz's Beis Din: Kohanim cannot fly from Ben Gurion In-Reply-To: <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> References: <20161101100837.GC25204@aishdas.org> <768bbd98-2bc6-a5ba-527f-66d96b5170a6@sero.name> <20161102145539.GA4683@aishdas.org> <6be95d60-87e8-7a4e-a8f5-827ce48538d6@sero.name> <20161102155107.GA6132@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 11:51, Micha Berger wrote: > But that's not the taqnah. The taqanah is a fence or trench of 10 tefachim > marking where the grave is. Since when? All we have a law (YD 371:5) that a cohen may not come within four amos of a grave unless there is a fence or trench between them; so now there is one. Who says the fence has to belong to the grave? If someone just happened to be buried next to a fence that was already there, or if someone were to build a fence and then happen to discover a grave next to it, could a cohen not stand on the other side of it?! -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 09:33:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:33:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit In-Reply-To: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> References: <627bf.10e410be.454b68c9@aol.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/16 12:05, via Avodah wrote: > > > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > > How is it zilzul shabbat to simply wear clothes, just because they do > something that will be useful after shabbos? Surely it's just like > wearing a self-winding watch, which I don't think anyone has a problem > with. > > > -- > Zev Sero > zev at sero.name > > > >>>>>> > > There are people who will not wear a watch on Shabbos. This is not such > a rare phenomenon. There are people who won't wear *any* watch outside on Shabbos, unless one would wear it even if it weren't working. But that's because of issur tiltul. It's got nothing to do with any issur connected with the watch itself or what it's doing. They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] fitbit Message-ID: <69b1d.27809f94.454b7796@aol.com> No some people will not wear a watch at all on Shabbos, even where there's an eruv. - --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/2/2016 12:33:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zev at sero.name writes: They'll wear watches where there's an eruv. But afaik nobody has a problem with a self-winding watch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:05:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:05:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 11:20:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:20:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161102182038.GF6132@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:14:13PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did : not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, : and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood : straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically : mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. And yet R' Aryeh Kaplan was also against shukling, saying it inferferes with proper kavanah. But kayadua, his definition of proper kavanah was far from that of Yekkes, Litvaks, or post-meditation Chassidus. I think the role of shukling depends on whether one's emotion in prayer is expressive or impressive. To quote R/Dr H Soloveitchik's R&R : In 1959, I came to Israel before the High Holidays. Having grown up in Boston and never having had an opportunity to pray in a haredi yeshivah, I spent the entire High Holiday periodfrom Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurat a famous yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The prayer there was long, intense, and uplifting, certainly far more powerful than anything I had previously experienced. And yet, there was something missing, something that I had experienced before, something, perhaps, I had taken for granted. Upon reflection, I realized that there was introspection, self-ascent, even moments of self-transcendence, but there was no fear in the thronged student body, most of whom were Israeli born.95 Nor was that experience a solitary one. Over the subsequent thirty-five years, I have passed the High holidays generally in the United States or Israel, and occasionally in England, attending services in haredi and non-haredi communities alike. I have yet to find that fear present, to any significant degree, among the native born in either circle. The ten-day period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are now Holy Days, but they are not Yamim NoraimDays of Awe or, more accurately Days of Dread as they have been traditionally called. I grew up in a Jewishly non-observant community, and prayed in a synagogue where most of the older congregants neither observed the Sabbath nor even ate kosher. They all hailed from Eastern Europe, largely from shtetlach, like Shepetovka and Shnipishok. Most of their religious observance, however, had been washed away in the sea-change, and the little left had further eroded in the "new country." Indeed, the only time the synagogue was ever full was during the High Holidays. Even then the service was hardly edifying. Most didn't know what they were saying, and bored, wandered in and out. Yet, at the closing service of Yom Kippur, the Ne'ilah, the synagogue filled and a hush set in upon the crowd. The tension was palpable and tears were shed. The prayers of his youth were expressive; people were scared, and the tears of the mispallelim were expressions of existing fear. What he perceived in that yeshiva and among most shuls he visited since was impressive. trying to make an impression on themselves. The emotional content is more what R Yisrael Salanter terms, "hispa'alus", working yourself up / working on yourself, trying to create the emotional experience that will make an impression and interanize that fear. I don't think such hispaalus of artificially trying to summon up the passion is to be deprecated. Even if the greaer need for it post-rupture is sad; once needed -- BH people are doing it. Shukling makes sense in impressive prayer, but it's such an unnatural way of being emotional it would detract from expressive prayer. For that matter, that both RSRH and RYBS talk about how lehispallel is in the hitpa'el (*), and the point of siddur-davening, prayer with formal liturgy, is impressive -- to internalize what we are supposed to be concerned with and turning to HQBH for. So hispa'alus emotionality seems appropriate. Why not shukl, if that helps you personally? (* Yes, I realize there is an inconsistency in how those two words are transliterated, but writing diqduq terms in Ashkanzis looked weirder.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 10:14:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478106844811.33366@ou.org> From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:05 PM > Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying. Most of the sources refer to swaying, not to what is called in Yiddish shockling. He also mentions R. Breuer as if it was only the German Jews who did not shockle. Everyone knows that RMF and RYBS stood ramrod straight, and they were not copying German minhogim. R. Aharon Kotler also stood straight. The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned as a chiddush of the Chasidim. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:14:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> At 10:46 AM 11/2/2016, via Avodah wrote: >If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to change it!! See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html and a more halachic discussion at http://ohr.edu/4499 -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:21:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] halacha vs minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161102192114.RWMK6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> >I found another case for a difference between minhag and psak Aren't there around a gazillion of those? ;-) >Most poskim say that the cohen's hands should be outside the tallit during >birkhat kohanim. >One proof is the minhag not to look at the chohen's hands. If his hands are >inside the tallit then this custom is meaningless. I have a vague recollection that there is a dispute that comes from interpreting a line (perhaps in the gemara?) "they should not look the kohain's hands", whether it refers to the kahal looking at the kohanim's hands, or the kohanim themselves looking at their own hands. (Perhaps the B"Y says something on this?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:04:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> References: <1478106306000.17980@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <28407e31-859a-998d-aef2-eee69bd21842@starways.net> On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the article at > http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 12:58:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:58:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study Message-ID: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine llevine at stevens.edu >> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is not the same as swaying..... Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel >>>>> Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on a continuum. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 15:27:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:27:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> References: <80b17.5386e8b7.454b9f51@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161102222741.GB16371@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM: :> WADR to the author, he mixes up several different things. Shockling is :> not the same as swaying..... : Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on : a continuum. Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200: : Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is : extremely wearying. Swaying actually makes it easier. Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an action that has the potential to distract. Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 2 18:59:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coca Cola In-Reply-To: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20161102192114.RWMG6555.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20161103015940.GA9650@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: :> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret... : : Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to : change it!! : : See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.html To quote, though: At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents by name. To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities, or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the list of what went in. (In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity. Water supply can also change flavor.) As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely remain this one post and not worth the switchover. FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow to a vegetable source. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 09:36:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> References: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> Message-ID: <20161103163632.GC12553@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote: : Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. To expand that reference, 2:80: 79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible? 80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 08:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:46:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 2, 2016 12:29:20 pm Message-ID: <1478184369.ECeB0.10968@m5.shachter> > The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned > as a chiddush of the Chasidim. > Rabbi Dr. ... Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:00:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Geshem or Gashem?! On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..." Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula? ________________________________ To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:21:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> References: <581b8883734ee_130c49ef32c376665cc@a2plmmsworker08.prod.iad2.gdg.mail>, <1478206854118.11228@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM To: Professor L. Levine ... > Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter > Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which > is the proper formula? ... > Y. Spitz > Yerushalayim > yspitz at ohr.edu Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim. I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 16:57:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org> Message-ID: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote: : I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I : have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem. : I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts. So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger). IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the "corrected" "shaAtah". ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full "asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written in an older Hebrew than Nakh.) So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem". But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem". So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything. Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause; IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700 into LT "gashem" or "geshem". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 3 23:03:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:03:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <20161104060345.GA3297@aishdas.org> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran... Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his brother. Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death. Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible. In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah, despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120 years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine command to build an ark! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:12:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> References: <1478208099956.44672@ou.org>,<20161103235703.GB18441@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1478265124675.6685@ou.org> From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM > IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of > the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh > (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in > "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word > would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein > chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The > word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent. ... > So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should > be "gashem" until after the RZH et al. Generally correct, but oversimplified. Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted from the T'NaKh. As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in P'suqei d'Zimrah; "Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb] So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb] But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it is not a quotation from the T'NaKh. I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts. His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found that did not meat his theories. In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who, as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur. ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged. And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted, in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 06:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:30:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? Message-ID: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as outside of Israel. Indeed, many Sefardim are known to be careful to not eat chodosh in accordance with this ruling of Shulchan Aruch. However, there are two main dissenting opinions among the Ashkenazic poskim. * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to grain grown by Jewish farmers. Grain grown by non-Jewish farmers outside of Israel is permitted. * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands. Though chodosh would apply to grain from countries neighboring Israel, it would not apply in Europe or America. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika). [This point will be discussed further in a future Halachah Yomis.] The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : Q. Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? : A. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) writes unambiguously that the : laws of chodosh apply in all circumstances, both in Israel as well as : outside of Israel.... AhS YD 293:2 cites a machloqes in the last mishnah in Qiddushin 1. R' Eliezer says it's assur deOraisa, as the pasuq says "bekhol moshevoseikhem". The Chakhamim say it only holds in EY after the 14 years of conquest and division -- the pasuq speaking of any yishuv in EY, thus more restrictive (by 14 years) than mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz. But in Menachos (68a), R Pappa and R' Huna bd"R Yehoshua who ate chadash on the 16, because they held it was safeiq derabanan lequlah, but the chakhamim devei R' Ashi hold it's deOraisa. As each source has the rabbim on opposite sides. And so (se'ifim 5-6) a machloqes rishonim ensues. : * The Bach (Yoreh De'ah 293) disagrees with Shulchan Aruch and : writes that the prohibition of chodosh outside of Israel only applies to : grain grown by Jewish farmers... Ahs (seif 14) says the Rosh writes in a teshuvah that Jewish and non-Jewish crops would be identical. The AhS (se'if 15) wants to be mechadesh that this is tied to the machloqes of yeish qinyan le'aku"m bEY. Because if there is, then crops non-Jews grow in in EY would be exempt, and one would have to say lo kol shekein crops they grow in chu"l. He therefore disagrees with the Bach. : * The Magen Avraham (489:17) writes that because of the difficulty : in observing this law, many rely on the opinion that the prohibition of : chodosh is limited to Israel and adjacent lands... : The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 293:2) mentions a third consideration. Since it : is uncertain when the planting occurred, one may be lenient and permit : eating these grains, because of a double doubt (sfek sfeika).... : The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) writes that the majority of people follow : the above leniency, and one should not disapprove of those who follow : this approach. Nonetheless, it is preferable to be stringent. And R' Y Amital said that halakhah really changed in the 20th cent not so much when it became common to treat the MB as poseiq acharon as when we decided we were all holy people to whom he was recommended these "stretch goals". The AhS's grounds to be meiqil: Se'if 6: Chadash bechu"l is derabbanan. He picks this side based on the Or Zarua (summarised in #5) who cites the Terumas haDeshen, the Riva and numerous others. And in a she'as hadechaq, where the gemara doesn't take side but just quotes various practices, why not rely on a stam mishnah et al? Therefore, since there is a safeiq when the wheat was planted, and without chadash finding bread would be too hard, we can say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Se'if 16: Quotes the Rama's sefeiq sefeiqa. But in 19 he against lists many of the sources (predominantly/entirely? Ashk) who hold it's derabbanan and therefore you don't need the 2nd safeiq. Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA 1997 wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. Se'if 20: All gezeiros extending mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz are only on lands close to EY. C.f. Terumah and ma'aser. Challah is an exception because the chiyuv is a chiyuv misah and starts when needing, not farming. Therefore chadash derabbanan wouldn't apply to grains grown in most of the world. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 08:43:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: I just had a look at the Roedelheim Sefas Emes siddur and the Baer Avodas Yisroel siddur. They both have Gashem. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 07:57:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5801bb99-a2f6-7df4-ff5d-c4fe8b01663d@gmail.com> On 11/4/2016 9:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an > action that has the potential to distract. > > Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. > > I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha There is another component which may (academically, at least) weigh the scales. It is a bein adam l-chaveiro concern (for males). The twisting from side to side during Shacharis causes the tsitsis of one's tallis to lift up and hit whomever is within their reach. I have been repeatedly stung in such circumstances. (The same happens when the davenner next to me first wraps himself in his tallis, flinging the tsitsis into my face, and at times into my eyes). Sometimes it happens with people to both my left and right, so that I feel like I'm going through a car wash. This of course, besides causing me pain, interrupts my kavanna, a problem during Shemoneh Essray, especially, when I'm lechatchilla helpless to move away (or get closer to the culprit so that it bothers him to twist). Sometimes I feel justified in moving away, just as I do when someone next to me is cracking his knuckles--but that's another knuck to crack. Not that I haven't tried asking the mispallel to be careful, but habits are hard to break. So, to the other guy, one's shuckling or pumping or defiant-looking hands-on hips postures or head contortions may be annoying, but the twisting or flinging causes real pain. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:35:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:35:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have a life of faith despite having periods of doubt. Quoting from (on blogs.timesofisrael.com): ... Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in. Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore described by Rashi as the first agnostic. The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran..... .... Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so different? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of human history.... In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of faith. Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's? Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. ....... << -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. Let's say a kindly father threatens his young child, "If you play with my lulav again I am going to potch you!" The little boy doubts that his father will carry through on his threat. "I wonder if Abba really will potch me? He's always given me so many chances before." Maybe he takes a chance and plays with Abba's lulav and maybe he's really scared and leaves it alone. But in any case he does not doubt the existence of his father! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 4 09:50:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any gods at all? I took it for granted R Besdin was talking about being agnostic WRT Hashem's intevention. : whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. I thinkn your problem is with a word, not the thesis. The parallel holds regardless of the appropiateness word "agnostic". Both weren't sure the neis would happen until it did. In general, Noach acted anyway, but the doubt still showed in the last minutes. Charan did not. Acting despite doubt was sufficient to keep Noach afloat. Charan, OTOH, was burnt by his inability to ignore his doubts. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 10:39:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 19:39:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> I don't really care whether one says geshem or gashem because they both mean the same thing. The advice to pause a moment after saying the pausal form gashem and not to pause after geshem makes sense. What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in tal umatar? I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which is not something I go for, I forgot it. I then posted my question to the list and someone sent the mystical story. But, I have forgotten it again. Don't bother to enlighten me because I have no need to forget a third time. But my question still stands. Why is one pausal and the other is not when the following words are the same. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 16:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 19:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161105235004.GA16990@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0200, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote: : What has long bothered me is something else. Why do the "corrected" : siddurim who have geshem also have morid hatal with tal in the pausal : form with a kamatz rather than the non-pausal form, with a patach, as in : tal umatar? : : I once saw or heard an explanation but, as it involved mysticism which : is not something I go for... Morid hatal could be taken as a reference to the tal shel techiyah. See Chagiga 12b, where R Yehudah quotes Rav that it's stored at the highest raqia', called Aravos. The dea that this is the tal we're talking about here is in Yerushalmi Berakhos 5:2 (vilna 38b), part of which is repeated in Taanis 1:1 (2a). In which case, "morid hageshem" is asking for rain, and is just part of the list. Whereas morid hatal has a subtext of being part of "mechayeh meisim Ata rav lehoshia morid hatal" shel techiyah. In any case, while it might be mystical, since it's in the Y-mi and consistent with the Bavli, the idea has impeccable halachic heritage. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 5 18:05:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:05:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> I know that at one time Krias Ha Torah in EY followed a triennial cycle. This was during the Bayis Sheni. Some congregations apparently completed the reading of the Torah in 3 years whereas others took 3 and half years. In Bavel a yearly cycle was followed as we do today. Some questions that I would like answers to: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 02:42:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? Message-ID: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. Anyone have any insight into this issue? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:37:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 6 ???? 2016 14:15, "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > A friend of mine who resides in Brooklyn was in EY last week for 3 days to attend the Pidyon Ha Ben of a great grandson. > > > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was saying V'San Bracha. > > > He told me on Shabbos that he was not sure whether to say V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar while in EY. > > > Anyone have any insight into this issue? I looked into a number of Aharonim when I was in Morocco this time two years ago. I don't remember any citations, but the conclusion I reached was that you can say whichever you choose and there will be a posek on whom you can rely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 04:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: ... > In EY they are already saying V'san Tal U'Matar. He, of course, was > saying V'San Bracha. ... In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. That's this coming Monday night. Akiva From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 05:01:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106130111.GC24042@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote: : In the EY that I live in, we start saying vsein tal on 7th Marchesvan. : That's this coming Monday night. I presume the actual case is that EY will be switching during the 3 week visit. Whether or not I am guessing currectly, that case raises an interesting variant on the question. Would the answer be different if one is in Israel for the switch, and would be switching with them? What about the Israeli coming here? Would those that have the chutznik saying "vesein berakhah" have the Israeli temporarily saying "vesein tal umatar livrakha"? I had a friend who refused to become Chazan in this situation. He was indeed still saying "vesein berakhah" in the US, and believed (logically enough) it was only possible because it was betzin'ah. He therefore didn't want to be put in the predicament of having to say the berakhah befarhesia. I am eagerly awaiting someone bringing real sources to this thread, though. And knowing what lemaaseh the friend's poseiq told him to do. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:01:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? - Correction In-Reply-To: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1478440906485.61716@stevens.edu> My friend was clearly mistaken in that the saying of V'sain Tal U'Matar begins in EY on 7 Mar Cheshvon which starts this Monday night. Thus he really had no problem. However, the question still remains, namely, " What should one do if one goes to EY for a visit during the 3 weeks when V'Sain Bracha is being said in the US and v'Sain Tal u'Matar is being said in EY?" YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 06:29:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > This whole clever vort falls apart right from the beginning. When > Rashi says that Noach did and did not believe, he is OBVIOUSLY > talking about the Flood -- Noach doubted whether Hashem really > would carry through on his threat to destroy the world. Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." Under normal circumstances, one does not deny the existence of the one (or the One) who is talking to him. But nevuah is not a normal circumstance. And as this same Rav Riskin taught my class when I was a freshman at YU, "humans excel at self-deception." It's quite possible that Noach was merely one of a long line of people who wondered, "Was that really God talking to me, or did I only imagine it?" Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 07:27:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> R' YL: > 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during > the first Bais Mikdash? > 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the > Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the > Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take > place? > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? Of interest regarding the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triennial_cycle I used to learn in an "out-of-town" kollel, and we would get random questions from people who found our number in the phone book. Once someone called and asked what parashah a specific week would be in the triennial cycle. That was the first I found out about the Conservative/Reform practice of a triennial cycle. KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 6 08:21:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161106162158.GD27950@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:33AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the trinnial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parshios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A sceond possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadship shaping the mesorah. (RMYG mentioned the C triennial cycle. They just lein 1/3 of a sedra each year, which means they're doing non-consecutive readings. Nothing to do with our topic, aside from using it as an excuse to justify shortening services.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 08:02:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:02:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'San Bracha or V'san Tal U'Matar? In-Reply-To: References: <1478428965432.98923@stevens.edu>, Message-ID: <1478534559871.23219@stevens.edu> I have received several emails regarding this issue. Reb Ira Epstein sent me the following links; http://tinyurl.com/j5hsnyu Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: V'Sain Tal Umatar - Between Eretz Yisroel And Chutz La'Aretz, What Should Travelers Say? and for a detailed discussion of the issue please see http://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/vsein-tal-umatar/ Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me the following (I could not locate it on the OU web site.): ________________________________________ From: Ari Zivotofsky Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:00 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: RE: V'Sain Bracha or V'sain Tal U'Matar? This from the OU Torah Tidbits may interest your friend: VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types... The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... An Israeli Being a Chazan Abroad Before Dec. 5 Question: If a "chiyuv" to be a chazan is abroad between 7 Marcheshvan and December 5th, is it okay for him to be a chazan? Does he say "v'ten tal umatar livracha," (=T&M) during his silent Shemoneh Esrei (=Amida) and chazarat hashatz? Answer: We discussed the matter of travelers to chutz la'aretz during this time of year in Living the Halachic Process (II:A-11), and we start with a summary. If an Israeli is abroad on 7 Marcheshvan and will be returning during the year, he should start asking for rain on 7 Marheshvan. While some say to do so in its regular place, it is preferable to make the request during the b'racha of Sh'ma Koleinu, due to a machloket on the matter. If he started reciting T&M in Israel and traveled later, it is even clearer that he should continue doing so, and there is more reason for him to do so at its regular place. One can question permissibility to be chazan on two grounds. One is the question whether someone who is obligated in one form of Amida can function on behalf of a tzibur that is obligated in a different form. Regarding the matter of an Israeli being chazan for a chutz la'aretz community on second day of Yom Tov, this is a daunting halachic problem (see Bemareh Habazak II:36). One can claim the same issues apply here. However, stringency requires making several assumptions (see responsum of Rav C.P. Scheinberg in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato p. 415-423), and it is very unlikely that all of them are correct. The great majority of poskim say that this is not a problem (see Minchat Yitzchak X:9, Yom Tov Sheni 10:6). Therefore, he can serve the tzibur according to their needs, which is to not say T&M. (Yalkut Yosef (5745 ed., vol. I, p. 264) says that even within chazarat hashatz he should unobtrusively whisper T&M during Sh'ma Koleinu. However, that is practically and halachically problematic, and is not accepted practice.) Another issue is how the chazan deals with his conflicting needs during silent Amida. On the one hand, he is obligated to have a Amida that includes T&M. On the other hand, Chazal instituted silent Amida for a chazan who is about to recite chazarat hashatz (which is a valid Amida), in order to practice for that task (Rosh HaShana 34b). If our traveler says T&M in its regular place, he is practicing in a way that would ruin his chazarat hashatz, which makes his silent Amida self-defeating. Yet, the Birkei Yosef (117:8) says that this is what he does. He cites as a source the Taz's (117:2) idea that a community that needs rain at a time when T&M is not said can ask in Sh'ma Koleinu (including the chazan) even though chazarat hashatz cannot be done that way. Several poskim see this setup as not problematic at all (see opinions in Yom Tov Sheni K'hilchato 10:(17)), while others prefer avoiding the situation (see B'tzel Hachochma I:62; the Birkei Yosef also implies it). It likely depends on whether we say the idea of practicing is just the original reason to institute silent Amida or that it remains the practical guide for how the chazan does the Amida. Another application is the question whether a chazan uses his own nusach for silent Amida when leading a shul with a different nusach. The Minchat Yitzchak (VI:31) justifies what he claims the minhag is to use one's own nusach, by saying that it is enough that he does chazarat hashatz from a siddur. Ed. note: To clarify - it can be argued that the idea of a practice Amida is applicable when there weren't many siddurim around (perhaps the days before printing) and the Shali'ach Tzibur would be saying the out-loud Amida (the repetition) by heart. Then, a practice run through is important. On the other hand... (continue reading) In contrast, Igrot Moshe (OC II:29) posits that the practice Amida should be done as chazarat hashatz will be, i.e., like the tzibur. As a chiyuv, you have certainly have the right to be a chazan, whether because of the opinions that there is no problem or because being precluded from being chazan is a b'dieved situation. We add the following suggestion (not requirement). If the chazan adds personal requests in Sh'ma Koleinu, he should say T&M along with them instead of at its regular place, with the following logic. Some poskim say to do so even when not a chazan, he certainly fulfills his obligation, and since the chazan never adds requests in chazarat hashatz, saying T&M will not cause a mistake. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Survey of Scientists on Scientism Message-ID: <20161107232730.GA10127@aishdas.org> >From Conservative Review Sorry Richard Dawkins, science and religion ARE compatible By: Logan Albright | November 02, 2016 Caricatures and exaggerations are major bugaboos of any belief system. ... But misrepresentation cuts both ways, and none are completely immune from it. People of faith tend to view the defenders of science as arrogant, intolerant, God-hating know-it-alls, who angrily shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. There is some justification for this belief, given that several high-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins -- as well as the late Christopher Hitchens -- tend to take this approach to rhetoric. But as in most cases, the vocal minority do not necessarily represent the whole, as a new survey entitled "Religion Among Scientists in International Context" shows. ... In addition to the fairly obvious finding that many scientists see no conflict between their faith and the scientific method, the study is notable in that dozens of respondents mentioned Richard Dawkins unprompted, with complaints about the way he misrepresents their field. Of those issuing the complaints, more than half were non-believers, indicating that this issue is not limited to those in the religious community. The kind of science Dawkins espouses is sometimes known as "scientism." It is essentially the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable way to obtain knowledge or truth and that all conceivable questions can ultimately be answered by science -- or not at all. Scientism amounts almost to a worship of science, as well as of the experts who transmit knowledge to the common people. Any questioning of this knowledge is deemed an unforgivable heresy. ... While it is proper to reject the worship of science for its own sake, it is a foolish overreaction to adopt an anti-science attitude as a response. The true scientific mind is filled with wonder and humility, searching for answers while at the same time never forgetting how much we don't know. Such an attitude is wholly compatible with religion, where awe at the creator is married with enthusiasm for learning about the creation. ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 04:55:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha The beracha on matzo The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the Sefardic custom. Other poskim consider them hamotzi, and this is the Ashkenazic custom. Many poskim, both Ashkenazic and Sefardic, suggest that a person should always consume enough matzo to be required to wash and bentch, or that he should eat it during a meal in which he washed on regular bread. However, there are poskim who hold that the beracha is always hamotzi and that one can wash and bentch on it. On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 06:27:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:27:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah Message-ID: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> In response to my questions 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the first Bais Mikdash? 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change take place? 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? about Krias Ha Torah, R. Micha Berger wrote: 1. What was the schedule for Krias Hatorah both before and during the : first Bais Mikdash? There were no standardized sedros. See BQ 82a. Moshe Rabbeinu established leining on Shabbos, Mon and Thu, and how many aliyos. Ezra added Shabbos minchah and the idea that we lein in cycles, and not just whatever reading the minyan wanted to. : 2. According to one source I have, Krias Ha Torah during the time of : the Tannaim followed the yearly cycle, but changed during the time of : the Amoraim to a triennial cycle. Is this true and why did this change : take place? I think it was by location, not era. For example, Megillah 29b says the triennial cycle was followed bemaaravah. : 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. : Why didn't the return to the triennial cycle? They also didn't opt to reintroduce reading with Targum. Only Teimanim still lein the way we used to. And without Targum, leining 1/3 of a parashah isn't all that much. Perhaps that's part of the reason why. There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... In Binyamin miTudela's day (1170) some congregations in Egypt were still leining in the 3 year cycle. And apparently the custom wasn't entirely dead in the Rambam's day either. But it not only required our 4 special parashios in Adar, the triennial cycle also had to make special parashios for the tokhachos. It didn't work as smoothly. A second possible piece to the answer. But I think the main answer is that most of us have our roots in Bavel, whether Sepharadi (which is almost entirely Babylonian mesorah) or Ashkenazi (which is more of a mix). And even if not, from the end of the Yerushalmi to the end of the geonim, we all turned to Babylonian rabbanim. The same reason why "The Gemara" is Bavli. That's 800 years of Babylonian leadership shaping the mesorah. ____________________________________________________ I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half years. The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. Ya'ari does not mention this at all. Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108152430.GB21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted me and replied: :> There wasn't really all that standard of a triennial cycle either. Some :> read from Shavuos to the third Shavuos. Others completed the Torah twice :> per shemittah (every 3-1/2 years, not 3). Etc... : I have posted selections from two seforim that discuss this issue at : https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/krias_ha_torah.pdf : While they agree in part to what Reb Micha wrote, they do not agree : entirely. In fact, they do not even agree with each other. The first : selection from Avraham Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah mentions : two triennial cycles in EY - one for 3 years and one for 3 and a half : years. Which fits what I wrote quite well... As I said, it wasn't all that standard, and both practices existed. : The second selection from Yesodos Ha Tefillah by Rav Eleazar Levi : does not mention the 3 and half year cycle at all (as far as I can see). Perhaps it was a minority practice, and he was just interested in the more common minhag. : In addition this sefer asserts that during the time of the Tanaim Krias : Ha Torah in EY was done yearly (He gives no source for this assertion.) : and that during the time of the Amaraim it changed to the triennial cycle. : Ya'ari does not mention this at all. I don't see how this can be. : Thus, as far as I can see, I still do not have a definitive answer : as to how the Torah was read before the first Bais Ha Mikdash, during : the first Bais Ha Mikdash, and during the Second Bais Ha Mikdash. That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 07:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> References: <1478609759636.615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108151939.GA21002@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:55:34PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >From today's Daf Hayomi B'Halacha : The poskim discuss how matzos eaten throughout the year relate to the : previous halacha. Some poskim consider them mezonos, and this is the : Sefardic custom.... On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according : to all opinions, since matzo is the bread on those days. We are speaking about crispy matzos, and the mezonos would be because they raise pas haba bekisnin issues. And like any other PhBbK, they are mezonos when in a form one wouldn't be qoveia se'udah on, and hamotzi when they are used like bread. What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I missing? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:33:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:33:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108163345.GC21002@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : People say that deleting this piyut is an unjustified change to the : established minhag, but I wonder if *introducing* the piyut is an : unjustified change to the established minhag. There must be rules to answer : this, and if those rules could be determined, these questions would go away. You'll be unsurprised to learn that R Gil Student has a well laid-out discussion of rolling back minhagim. Starting with a taxonomy of kinds of minhagim (by type, by scope, by source). He doesn't discuss your "why", but it's well worth a read . He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. Closing summary: > ... you can discared a curom if: > 1. It falls into the category of a mistaken custom > 2. It is based on a prior halakhic ruling and one of the unique Torah > scholars of the generation ruled against this practice > 3. All (or most) of the people subject to the custom formally annul it > (which is not possible with a universal custom) > 4. You move to a place with a contrary custom, except for family customs > 5. You change families For my own thoughts: This may be a question according to the Rambam, if Mamrim 2:2 implies the rabbinate makes minhagim. "BD she.... vehinigu minhag, upashat hadavar bekhol Yisrael..." Most contemporary people (and most google hits), not that I have an explicit source, would assume that the word minhag is more literal. That the primary difference between a din derabbanan and a minhag is that the latter is more grass roots -- the people follow a practice that stands up to rabbinic review. And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. And perhaps the Rambam in Mamrim means a BD must actively ratify (not just fail to strike down) a minhag, which then -- even if it then spread to the rest of Kelal Yisrael -- could be repealed by a BD gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. And if minhag is not formally enacted, one cannot ask centuries later if the idea was okay to initiate. All we can say is that by the time rabbis were asked, the piyut was ratified as an oay minhag. Here one is asking for rabbis to use rules in favor of removing a piyut, which would be a different, non grass roots, process. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 08:54:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161108165446.GB7043@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't want any of the things in my house to get stolen, and that's why I : lock the house when I go to shul. There is a machlokes on whether or not : this justifies carrying the key on Yom Tov, and the MB says that if I can : secure those things in some other way, then "all opinions" forbid me to : carry the key. And that's why I wrote that when I lived in an area without : an eruv, and people were home to let me in, I saw no heter to carry my key, : so I used my Shabbos key. Tangent: If you don't wear your Shabbos key on yom tov or other times when you don't need it to avoid hotza'ah, does it still work as a Shabbos key? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 10:11:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt Message-ID: <307fed.4f6450c1.45536f55@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah R"n Toby Katz wrote: > The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic. > ....Not for a > moment did he doubt the existence of the One who was talking to him > and giving him instructions! The premise is absurd. On the one hand, I concede that "he is obviously talking about the flood", given that Rashi (7:7) says explicitly, "He believed and did not believe that the flood would come." But on the other hand, that same Rashi begins with the words "Af Noach mik'tanei amana haya - Even Noach was among those of little faith." Isn't it clear that this refers to faith in general? "Little faith" is a world apart from "Maybe He will relent." [skip] Akiva Miller >>>>> His lack of faith was a doubt that Hashem would really do what He said He was going to do. The people of his generation did not believe there was going to be a Flood, and even Noach himself was not sure -- hence, "miktanei emunah haya." The word "agnostic" simply does not apply to this type of doubt. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 11:26:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 10:24 AM 11/8/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >That's because there is no one answer. You're asking for a standard when >there was none. Different shuls or towns had different minhagim. All >people can do is describe their notion of the range. And if one author >thinks some practice is an outlier, far from any of the norms and another >does not, they both could end up describing the same history differently. Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a far cry from what it was originally. People did many different things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 13:12:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161108211215.GC7043@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there : was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a : far cry from what it was originally. People did many different : things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the : Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people : had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei... Tefillah. AkhG invented Shemoneh Esrei. Before this occured, davening couldn't mean Shemoneh Esrei in any version. And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. That's why you didn't trust a Chazan who ad-libbed "Modim Modim" as possibly being a Gnostic or Zoroastan dualist. And why R' Chaninah had a talmid who went on and on with complemenary adjectives in Birkhas Avos -- "haKeol haGadol haGibor vehaNora vehaAdir, vehaIzuz..." until his rebbe said "Have you exhaused all possible praise of your master? (Berakhos 33b) There are remians of THREE parashah orderings among the tefillin worn by those who fought under the Chashmonaim -- including those that conform to Rashi and to Rabbeinu Tam. The question of how many strings of tzitzis should be blue and how to combine the number and colors of the windings with the knots was never resolved. Etc... : If so, then : why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing : mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Because pesaqim accumulate. Halakhah is crystalizing. Meanwhile, there are always new questions that are open... Especially when there are arguments over which pesaq is better, and it threatens to turn the community into agudos agudos. Then the poseiq has to set up a communial pesaq rather than allowing people more autonomy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Does the prohibition of chodosh apply in the diaspora? In-Reply-To: <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <1478266251992.58271@stevens.edu> <20161104164139.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <442caaf6-d7f8-455d-d76e-fe0c6f11c07d@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:41, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Se'if 18: In Russia, the winters are long. No one would be planting wheat > before Pesach -- it is an ignorable miqreh rechoqah. According to the USDA > 1997 > wheat planting could start as early as Mar 1 (beginning of the season > in Washington and Oregon). So this heter wouldn't apply in the US. And > the AhS says it wouldn't work in Germany or Poland. You have this backwards. He says that in Russia this heter *doesn't* work. In Germany and Poland it does, and according to your information the same would be true of America. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:35:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> References: <581E1960.5080005@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1e262795-77c9-f166-6cef-a7f689922883@sero.name> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n144.shtml#10 -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:41:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> References: <1478394367406.38481@stevens.edu> <022c01d23842$51f651e0$f5e2f5a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/11/16 10:27, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: >> > 3. When Jews returned to EY in numbers they opted for the yearly cycle. Why >> > didn't the return to the triennial cycle? This one's simple. The old yishuv of EY, which read on a 3-year cycle, was completely destroyed by the Crusaders, and its minhagim disappeared When Jews resettled EY there was no existing community for them to join, and whose minhagim to adopt, so they brought all their minhagim from chu"l with them, including the 1-year cycle. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 14:26:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> On 04/11/16 12:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:03PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : The difference between them was that Noach never was an agnostic... > > And who said Charan was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any > gods at all? Haran, not Charan! And people very much questioned the existence and power of Avraham's God. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 8 16:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Faith and Doubt In-Reply-To: <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> References: <5aee73.1feb2f0a.454e12b6@aol.com> <20161104165017.GB18320@aishdas.org> <76da159f-8c03-ddf9-509c-1b336d315972@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161109005011.GA22162@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:26:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: :> And who said [H]aran was? Who in his era questioned the existence of any :> gods at all? : And people very much questioned the existence : and power of Avraham's God. We were talking about agnostics. As in, people who questioned the idea that there are any gods. Not people who question the existence of one particular G-d. When R' Besdin, or R' Riskin paraphrasing R' Besdin, suggested that Noach or Haran were "agnostics", the intent could not have been as RnTK took it, because the notion of an agnostic would be anachronistic. I took it for granted R Besdin was referring to their inability to be convinced one way or the other on this particular question, waiting for evidence before actually committing irrevocably. (Sense 2 or 3 of the word in http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic , not sense 1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 03:21:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine posted from Daf Hayomi B'Halacha: > On Pesach, the proper beracha is hamotzi according to all opinions, > since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a transliteration. R' Micha Berger asked: > What I do not understand is why Sepharadim would make a hamotzi on > Pesach, "since matzo is the bread on those days." What about those > Edot for whom crispy matzos never became a norm for Pesach? For them, > Ashkenazi crackers are not the normal bread for Pesach. What am I > missing? My question goes farther. I ask this question even for those Edot - including Ashkenazim - whose fear of chometz led to a lack of soft matzos, and for whom crispy matzos *did* become the norm. I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this flexibility. For example, if I see something in the supermarket labeled as being "flatbread", does that define its bracha as Hamotzi? No, it does not. Rather the halacha tells us that - because it is crispy and not soft - it is normally eaten as a snack food, so its bracha is Mezonos. Further, the concept of "normal circumstances" tells us that in an *unusual* circumstance, where I *am* using it as the basis of my meal, then the proper bracha is Hamotzi. Why would this change for a similar product, where the box is not labeled "flatbread", but instead it says "matzah". Does the label on the box define its status, or is that the halacha's job? If crispy matzah is Mezonos during the year, it is surely because occasionally I might eat a piece of it as a snack. Let's say that I'm in the mood for something that is crunchy but not salty, so my choices are carrot sticks or matza. So I take a piece of matza, and say mezonos. Are you saying I can't do that on Pesach? That if I want to snack on matzah, and it happens to be Pesach, I have to wash and bench? Why? Of course, if it is Pesach and I sit down to a meal, and I want bread at the meal for whatever reason, I will use whatever matzah happens to be available, and the bracha will be Hamotzi because I am kovea seudah on it. Why should that affect the bracha for matza when it is a between-meal snack? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 10:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:11:19AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : My understanding is that the first machlokes was the machlokes : concerning semichah between Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yochanan, : as cited in the Mishnah in Chagigah (2:2). : : If so, then weren't Tefillen "standardized" regarding the parashah : orderings from the time that this mitzvah was given?... Again, you're arguing against archeological evidence. We know as a scertainty that both versions were in common use for well over a millennium, at least. that is a plurality, a range of options, not a dispute. It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of ways to do something, not a dispute. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 11:36:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161109193653.GA10776@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:21:47AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> since matzo is the bread on those days. (??????? ??????? ????, 29) : I would like to request that the chevreh pay more attention to the language : that they are posting in. Hebrew is usually messed up in these emails, and : I have no idea what source they were referencing. Please try to include a : transliteration. Administative note (skip down if you just want real content): I have a recommendation.... The problem is with the digest part of the email software in particular. There are two ways to avoid it, and we could make this list fully bilingual, at least for everyone but users of older email readers. 1- You could go to single email mode. Combined with a rule in your email client that moves emails from Avodah to its own folder, it's no less convenient than a digest -- and gets you the emails sooner. 2- Switch to MIME digest mode, where each individual email comes in as an attachment. Most email readers will display attached emails as part of the original. If you want, I can help you test your own reader before trying. If you get the email as-is, not flattened to plain text, the Hebrew would come through as-is as well. ... : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." Are : the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would vary : from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of this : flexibility. Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture -- pas haba bekisnin. Wouldn't the same line of reasoning then have Sepahradim making a distinction not between Pesach and the rest of the year, but between matzos made for Pesach and thus to be used like bread, and those made for the rest of the year? So why wouldn't Sepharadim make a hamotzi on leftover KLP matzah? (About matzos and labeling, Tam Tams TM are a real-life example.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 01:44:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:44:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza Message-ID: <> My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 23:57:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) In-Reply-To: <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> References: <1478615294293.6806@stevens.edu> <0c91e8973d964f3ba10a9780e29b5ce2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20161109185311.GB21020@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <91.E4.15750.D7824285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:53 PM 11/9/2016, Micha Berger wrote: >It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was >preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. >When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the >desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of >ways to do something, not a dispute. Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 9 21:42:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Matana Al M'nas L'hachzir In-Reply-To: References: <20161031161547.GB15157@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [As recently noted on list, too recently for RDI to have seen, but this gives me a chance to remind the chevrah anyway, the digest software can't handle Hebrew. Please save me time and transliterate rather than emailing Hebrew letters. -micha] On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... > I'll give two examples of where we do exactly that: Older children who > do a partial fast on Yom Kippur. And children of any age who say a partial > Birkas Hamazon.... You may want to look at Chagiga 2a tosafos d"h ???? ??? ??? [eizeh hu qatan -mb] where they say that a katan has to bring a korban nadava as part of chinuch for mitzvas re'eah, since he's not actually chayiv in a korban re'eah. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:12:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:12:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin Message-ID: <> I doubt that we have so many ancient tefillin to say anything was in common use. Besides there are several ancient tefillin which are quite different from what we do today. The problem is we don't usually know who these tefillin belonged to ie what sect they belonged to -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:17:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:17:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: <> minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim is added later As to piyut - my experience is that there are loads of different customs as to which piyutim are said. Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As I previously pointed out our present piyutim on RH/YK are an amalgam of different piyutim. Whatever common ones exist are only because of the printing press. I would assume that for rishonim every town had their own set of piyutim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash (was Questions about Krias Ha Torah) Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > It wasn't a machloqes until someone decides that one ordering was > preferred, and someone else decides that a different one was. > When there are a variety of equally good ways to implement the > desiratum in Menachos 34b-35a that is a plurality, a range of > ways to do something, not a dispute. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with > precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. One could write an entire book on this, and in fact, listmember Rabbi Zvi Lampel did exactly that. I highly recommend his "The Dynamics Of Dispute - The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times", published by Judaica Press. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: <> On the contrary I take it for granted that torah she be al peh was some general rules and little specifics. These rules were applied by chazal to create the Mishna which still has many disputes about applying the rules -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:33:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <. He in turn is basing himself on R' Baruch Simon's Imerei Barukh: Tokef haMinhag baHalkhah, ch 3-5. >> I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find loads of customs that no longer exist. >From the article However, according to the *Pri To?ar*, there is also a concept of a family custom. Even if you move to a place with an established custom, you still have to follow your family customs. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv rules this way. In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case in the past. One finds many ashkenazi Jews with distinctly sefardi names and vice versa. Their ancestors moved sometime in the distant past and over time became part of the new community and old customs mostly disappeared. In Israel the large majority of shuls daven nusach sefard even though the congregants are not descendants of chassidim. In Jerusalem many shuls daven nusah haGra even though they are not descendants of talmidei haGra. These is what kids learn in school and thats what they do as adults. As Prof. Levine points out there are a few shuls that keep the old German minhagim and scattered places that insist on nusach ashkenaz (though including ein kelokenu and other sefard additions) but these are the small minority. Many have given up on gebrochs (though popular in hotels). I would assume that with the many "mixed" marriages that the children grow up with a mixture of ashkenaz and sefard customs. In the past it was common in many families to fast on mondays and thursdays. This is rarely done today even for behab. Many grandmothers said prayers in yiddish like "Gut fum Avraham" which have become lost. As I already p[ointed out piyutim changed over the generations. as another example see http://matzav.com/the-forgotten-fast-day-20-sivan/ abbreviated The *Shach*, was the first *rov* to institute a fast day on the 20th of *Sivan* in commemoration of the ?*Gezeiros Tach V?Tat*? It would seem, that he had prescribed the fast day only for his family and descendants. This would explain why, in 1652, the Council of the Four Lands also declared a fast on 20 *Sivan*; they were establishing one for the public at large. A very moving dirge commemorating the tragedy was also written by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller,which was published in Cracow, 1650,. In it, he lists by name twelve of the almost three-hundred communities that were totally decimated during the massacres. It begins with the standard ?*Keil Malei Rachamim*,? but then becomes very original and deserves proper historical attention. Today both the fast and the special keil malei rachamim have disappeared. In summary the history of real minhagim don't follow the neat rules of the article. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 03:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:56:43 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Micha:] > And while I do not have an explicit source, it is implied by Nedarim > 81b and the Ran ad loc who say that a minhag is a neder created through > the mere action of performing it. Which derabbanan would be a binding > neder. Similarly, the case we've revisited ad infinitum from Maqom > sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b) is where the people of Baishan are apparently > being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhagt because the parents did it. > In Nefesh haRav, RHS cites R Moshe SOloveitchik saying that despite the > above, the Rambam holds that breaking minhag is assur as perishah min > hatzibur. A machloqes with the Ran, but still appears to be saying that > a minhag is a minhag by virtue of common practice. Not formal enactment. I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a wide spread world accepted minhag. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 04:01:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Prof Levine: > On 10 Nov. 2016, at 9:57 pm, via Avodah wrote: > > Are we to deduce the same for other practices, namely, that there > was no single standard? If so, then the Yahadus we have today is a > far cry from what it was originally. People did many different > things. For example, the format of tefillah was established by the > Anshe Knesses Ha Gedola. Before this occurred, presumably people > had widely different versions of, say, shemone esrei. If so, then > why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing > mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner? Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the Tannoim but it is wrong today. What hasn?t changed is that we must use the best science of our time e.g. in health matters. We just can?t annul the old concern for technical reasons. It might become Ossur to use any plastic in a micro wave. Does that bother anyone? Not me, if they find it?s bad for your health. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> And even at the end of the 2nd Beis haMiqdash, the chasimos of Shemoneh :> Esrei were established, but the bodies of each berakhah was pretty :> free-form. Just make sure that the body closes with me'ein hachasimah. : minor quiblle - I would put it a little later. Rabban Gamliel and Shmuel : Hakatan after churban habayit are still working on the nusach. Lamalshinim : is added later I was basing myself on Berakhos 33a, Megillah 17b, and the Sifre (Devarim 343). The Rambam repeatedly mentions the significance of the fact that the authors of the Amidah were 120 zeqeinim umeihem kamah nevi'im. What Berakhos 28b has Shim'on haPequli hisdir 18 berakhos lifnei Rabban Gamliel al haseder, beYavneh. Which is when R' Gamliel asks for the writing of Birkhas haMinim, and only Shemu'el haQatan was capable of it. Given the other sources, it could mean that there were various opinions about the order of the 18 berakhos, and he gave them a seder. "Al haseder" could be taken to imply there was a pre-existing "right order" that ShP [Shim'on the cotton salesman -Rashi) was trying to match. Shemoneh Esrei was established enough in R' Yehoshua's day for him to refer to "me'ein 18" -- Havineinu. And he is an older contemporary of R' Gamliel! (Recall he's the one who RG insulted, leading to the loss of his office.) Also, in Bavel, Shim'on haQatan's addition was made into berakhah #19. In EY, Bonei Y-m and Birkhat David were folded together. Still, we call it Shemoneh Esrei, impying there was an 18 berakhah structure for centuries before Shimon haQatan, not days. Although I guess it is technically possible that we use the EY nickname for the Amidah even as we use the Bavli nusach that belies it, I find it implausible. Makes more sense to me to explain Berakhos 28b in light of the other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:06:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah In-Reply-To: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110170127.GA1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2905567c-db29-1327-a418-25042813b89c@sero.name> Regardless of the details, for the purpose of the current discussion it's sufficient to point out that lechol hade'os, in the first Bayis there was no nusach hatefillah. The mitzvah mid'oraisa is for each person to daven in his own words, and it was only at the beginning of the second Bayis that Chazal gave guidelines, which gradually took on more and more formality, and it wasn't until the Geonim that there was a fixed siddur so that everyone was saying the same words from beginning to end. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 09:58:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/16 06:56, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: > I wish I could recall the particular Minhag but Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel > Schachter did once pasken to me that a minhag that is simply Shtus, > has no status and one should abandon it as a mistake. In some cases > there could be issurim involved in keeping the minhag! This wasn't a > wide spread world accepted minhag. That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:46:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:46:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah she be al peh Message-ID: The Rambam inj his introduction to the Mishna lists 3 categories of Torah she she be al pe 1) Things that have a hint in the Torah or through the 13 middot that are part of tradition 2) wherever the gemara states that this is halacha mi sinai 3) things learned through the 13 middot without a tradition which leads to the various disagreements in the gemara category (3) is by far the largest portion and certainly does not contain great details. In fact ,category (3) was developed from Moshe until at least the conclusion of the Mishna a period of several thousand years As the famous aggadata states when Moshe visited the bet midrash of R. Akiva he didn't understand anything. This was because R. Akiva (and his teachers) had developed new halachot based on the 13 middot. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:59:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: from wikipedia The language of the Amidah most likely dates from the mishnaic period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) at which time it was considered unnecessary to prescribe its text and content.[5] The Talmud indicates that when Rabbi Gamaliel II undertook to fix definitely the public service and to regulate private devotion, he directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph inveighing against informers and heretics , which was inserted as the twelfth prayer in modern sequence, making the number of blessings nineteen.[6] Other sources, also in the Talmud, indicate, however, that this prayer was part of the original 18;[7] and that 19 prayers came about when the 15th prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and of the throne of David (coming of the Messiah) was split into two. >From numerous gemaras it is obvious that the exact details of many brachot were not detailed for many generations. It is obvious as Micha points out that some form of the amidah is from second Temple times. The question is how rigid it was until R Gamaliel and even later -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 10:59:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questions about Krias Ha Torah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110185901.GD1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:35PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Why does change worry you? Mixing Fish and Milk is the Science of the : Tannoim but it is wrong today. Yes, in general, but for this example -- not necessarily. You take the Rambam's shitah for granted. Most of us did not drop this one when the rest of their medical advice was dropped with a "nihtaneh hateva". But how is this related to R/Prof Levine's question? He asked about the way in which we fulfill a mitzvah change just because halakhah allowed a range of possibilities and the norm changed. And if mitzvos did once have such room for variation, "why is there so much emphasis in Judaism today regarding doing mitzvas in a very precise and prescribed manner?" You raise a different topic, how the application of the very same halachic position will produce different results if the situation or our understanding of the situation changes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:29:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That there is such a thing as minhag shtus is an explicit Tosfos on : the first amud of Bava Basra (dh Bigvil). In general, to be binding : a minhag must have been established with the consent of a talmid : chacham; if it just arose organically it's not a minhag. See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic authority. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 11:40:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:40:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] tefillin on chol hamoed In-Reply-To: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> References: <20161110192902.GE1807@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/16 14:29, Micha Berger wrote: > See my post of Tue 11:33am EST, where I argue that minhagim are grass > roots and just arise mimetically. They may (c.f. Rambam Mamrim 2:2) > require validation from a rav after creation to qualify. But I'm not > sure. E.g. the Ran says minhag is binding as neder (derabbanan; built > through chazaqah) and the Rambam says (according to RMSoloveitchik) > the problem is perishah min hatzibbur -- neither relies on rabbinic > authority. I don't have references handy, but there's a lot of shu"t on the subject saying that without the endorsement of a rav, it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 12:04:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Role of Indoctrination in Chinukh Message-ID: <20161110200442.GA13625@aishdas.org> I think R' Eliezer Eisenberg's (CC-ed) post deserves a larger discussion. Please see "Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education" at . It reminds me of discussions as an NCSY advisor about the lines between religion and cult, and which side of the line /we/ were on... Tir'u baTov! -Micha Beis Vaad L'Chachamim Thursday, November 10, 2016 Pavlovian Conditioning: The Role of Indoctrination in Religious Education My brother recently remarked that the putatively higher OTD rate, rachmana litzlan, in the Litivishe/rationalist community as compared to Chasiddishe/Kabbala oriented community is evidence of the latter's greater authenticity. I responded that the OTD rate says nothing about validity of the mesorah. Which brings me to this question. What is the place of conditioned response in religious education/inculcation/indoctrination? When I say conditioned response, I mean Pavlovian training and its less offensive but fundamentally the same other forms of indoctrination. Or call it brainwashing. There's no gettin away from words with negative connotation. I remember hearing of a scene in a movie about communists going into children's classrooms and telling a child to pray to God for candy, and of course, nothing happened. Then the children were told to pray to Stalin, and handfuls of candy were showered down upon them. The children would then associate the sweet reward with putting their faith in comrade Stalin. This is a fiction, of course, but I use it as an example of how children can be conditioned. I found it, of course, on Youtube. This is the scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa" We find such such devious manipulation horrible, planting a conditioned response in people as if they were animals, tricking them into "believing" by throwing candy. But.... Putting honey on the letters of the Aleph Beis for a child is not the only example. The song is about "Ve'ha'arev na," and sometimes, you need a little help to feel that areivus, that joy and pleasure. So is it right or wrong? Should our schools be phlegmatic stoa of reason? And the truth is that all reward and punishment is a form of conditioning. Are all forms morally defensible? Do we draw the line at some arbitrary point? I sent this question to three people whose opinions I respect. Each of them is a talmid chacham of very high standing far beyond rabbinic certification, a scholar, a decent person, and a PHD. One said something absurd, which I'm not reproducing. Here are the others. I I'm sure you are correct that the OTD rate says nothing about the validity of the mesorah. In addition, I highly doubt that the Chassidishe community has a lower rate. Not long ago I read an article which approximated that 1,300 adults leave Orthodox Judaism in Israel each year; the individual cases portrayed were all Chassidic. ( Think of the multitudes of Russian and Polish Jews who arrived in America during the first quarter of the last century who came from Chassidic backgrounds and whose children cast off their ancestral past with lightning speed). I shall answer your second question first. No, our schools should not be phlegmatic stoa of reason. One of the main problems within the orthodox world is the lack of any sense of personal religious experience and inner feeling. As adults, our emotional depths are barely, if ever stirred during much of our religious observance. Most of us soldier on like automatons, going through the motions and all the while feeling quite cold and detached from what we're doing. Orthodoxy is thus redefined as "Orthopraxis" and its' adherents are viewed as soulless bodies. It is to avoid such a situation, that Rav Kook z"l sought to incorporate a full program of instruction in poetry, music and art in his yeshiva. He wanted his students to give expression to their souls, to cultivate their inner depths through those human arts which he thought nourished refinement and sensitivity. ( Alas, these plans were never carried out.) Which brings me to your first question concerning the role of conditioned response in religious education. I am against it for the reasons you mentioned; it is devious and manipulative. Even more basically, it offers a false picture of reality which will be realized as such when these children grow up and lead them to abandon Judaism which they will now identify as a web of lies into which they were entrapped. Conditioned response is different though from other quite legitimate methods of encouragement and motivation which form a natural part of the educational process, e.g. awarding praise and prizes for academic excellence, ( candy for memorizing bentshing, a sefer for learning ten blatt gemara ba'al peh , etc. etc.). In addition, it is absolutely appropriate to make the school environment as pleasant and beautiful as possible so that the child will associate learning with things delightful and pleasing to all the senses. ( Just as we all remember and identify the shabbosim and yomim tovim of our youth with the sweet smells and tastes of our mother's cooking, of the flowers on the table and lovely appearance of the table settings, etc. ) II Dear R' Eliezer Thank you for your interesting note/query. It's never an imposition but I have no clue why anyone would think I'm qualified, not to mention uniquely qualified, to address it. [please don't post this anywhere on the internet under my name] There are several questions here, and I can't quite follow the logic of the whole. Regarding OTD: I don't know where the statistic came from. I don't know anyone who keeps statistics about OTD for either of these religious communities. Certainly, dubious numbers could not lead to any claims about a phenomenon that has been part of our history since antiquity. It is structurally a case of a tiny minority in a large and alluring culture; there is always attrition and always has been. (remember the Hellenistic Jews of bayit sheni, the converts to Christianity in medieval Europe--all were OTD in their own day) The reasons that any individual has for choosing a different life path from the one they were born into are too many to list and only a small percentage are based on the perception of greater rationalism. Personal conflict with the parental home, social or psychological issues, lifestyle choices, partners from another community or disillusionment with religion are just some of the reasons--no two people leave for the same reason. I don't believe it has to do with "truth" of the society they are leaving.All people are raised with a view of the world that is inculcated in many ways. Knowledge imparted can leave a greater impression when other senses are called in: we sing the ABC's, enact historical events and wars-- historical traditions need ritual, narrative, etc to be transmitted and remembered over generations. This is a technique that every teacher and parent uses, and the teachers and parents who inculcate Torah are using the best available. It is only brainwashing when the adults doing it know it to be false or dangerous, and they persist because they need their jobs (or afraid for their lives). Tricking children for Stalin is to knowingly perpetuate a lie; lovingly admitting children into the mystery of literacy is not on the same plane in any sense that I can think of.That's my two cents worth. In any case, I think the common denominator is that a just and moral society has the right and even a moral obligation to propagate its fundamental beliefs, and if conditioned response training does it, that is fine. I guess that's true. There are things that children simply will not pick up on their own, from manners to toilet training to any physical or mental discipline, and you have to impose these thing upon them. If Pavlovian conditioning does it, so be it. I know this is not a new question for educators, but it's the first time I'm thinking about it seriously. Here are some papers I found online on this topic: I only glanced at them, but they did not immediately strike me as absurd, so maybe they have something to offer. ... How to use this Website Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasional excellent insight. These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later. Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** The writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 18:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] questions about krias hatefillah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Many machzorim have piyutim in the midst of berachot kriat shema > but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, but as far as I know, *everyone* includes Kel Adon every Shabbos morning. Would this count as an exception to that? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 10 22:15:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Practice During the First and Second Bais Hamikdash Message-ID: From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Are you asserting that Torah shel Baal Peh was not given with precision and definitiveness? If so, then this is a chidash to me. YL >>>>>> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question but here is a brief answer anyway. [1] Some of the halachos that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu ba'al peh were forgotten over the course of centuries, especially after the churban bayis sheini, with the mass deaths and dispersions that occurred at that time. This was precisely the reason the chachamim began to write the Mishna and later the Gemara -- because they saw that details were being forgotten. [2] Some of the original laws were davka not given with precision and definitiveness. For example, there was an obligation to daven but the exact wording of brachos and tefillos was not given on Har Sinai. [3] Over time there were many enactments made by Chazal. Holidays (Purim and Chanuka) and fast days (Tisha B'Av et al) were added to the Jewish calendar to commemorate historical events, and the laws specifying how these days were to be observed were, needless to say, not handed down on Sinai. There were also enactments like declaring chicken to be fleishig, or the rules of muktza, and many more. If you were magically transported back in time and invited to share a Shabbos meal with Dovid Hamelech, you would hardly recognize his religion. (He wouldn't recognize your religion, either.) [4] Finally, and most dramatically, with the importation of potatoes from the New World, ancient chulent and kugel recipes were rendered obsolete. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:01:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:01:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] aliyah to EY Message-ID: This week's parshah has (at least) 2 problems. 1) At the nd of Noach Terach and Avraham head to Canaan. No reason given for leaving Ur Kasdim and for going to Canaan. They stop in Charan. Then in Lech Lecha G-d commands Avraham to go to Canaan. 2) Pesukin 4 and 5 from the beginning of Lech Lecha seems to repeat the same idea that Avraham went to Canaan Answer I heard this morning: There are two types of aliyah to EY: both legitimate 1) Person leaves a place because of persecution or economic reasons etc. Once leaving already he goes to EY rather than somewhere else because EY has something special about it. 2) One goes to EY because it is a mitzva (on whatever level) Terach (and Avraham) leave for EY for some reason i.e. (1). Once in Charan Avraham continues for reason (2). The Zohar explains that G-d doesn't just help people. Once one starts on one's own then G-d helps. So once Avraham started the journey to Canaan but stops for some reason then G-d comes and helps/commands Avraham to continue. Historical examples 1) Ramban leaves for EY only several years after the debate in front of the king. Rumor has it that he had to leave because he distributed the deatils of the debate with his arguments against Xtianity. Once he leaves he goes to EY at the age of over 70. 2) Tamidei haGra and Talmidei of Besht leave for EY because it is a mitza. i.e. they feel an active desire to move to EY 3) Herzl and many later zionists move (or at least advoacte moving) because of anti-semitism in Europe. Once leaving they want a Jewish homeland in EY. The Uganda proposal was not adopted. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 01:33:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch Message-ID: > I had another idea a few days ago. I would like to suggest that > mitzvas chinuch does NOT require us to concoct halachic mechanisms to > enable the katan to do the mitzvos with all its details. Rather, it > is totally acceptable for a child to do a mitzvah in a partial manner, > and the parent is doing his chinuch thereby, provided that the parent > explains this to the child... >> Thew key word is "partial manner" . POskim state that one should not give a minor 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:53:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chinuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161111105326.GA32142@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:33:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 4 minim that are pasul because that is not chinuch. In davening the child : does not have to say everything but it has to be at least a partial : davening, i.e., complete portions and not half of many things. I understand 4 minim, which is all or nothing. But in terms of davening, there is a qiyum of a partial manner. For that matter, there is a baseline -- not partial -- qiyum of every mitzvah one can fulfill davening beyechidos with just saying from Birkhos Shema through E-lokai Netzor. (For that matter, you can -- and some rishonim hold you should -- skip much of Yotzer Or, and not say Qedushah biychidus.) But in any case, there is partial or complete qiyum in partial portions too. A serious lack of hiddur. Jumping right into Shema without Pesuqei deZimra will almost certainly be a Shema with less kavanah. Aside from losing the opportunity (Berakhos 4b) to be assured of olam haba by saying Tehillah leDavid (Ashrei) 3x daily. So why would this rule not imply teaching a qatan (eg) the chasimos of birkhos Shema first, so that they can have a qiyum of saying all three earlier? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 11 02:34:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How to Pasken - R Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20161111103428.GA26019@aishdas.org> >From , R Asher Weiss's opinion on some of our perennials. :-)BBii! -Micha Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita For the Zechut of R' Zion Hilu Psak Halacha Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz In: Miscellaneous Halachot, [Kelali] Tags: halacha, mesores, tradition Question: > Shalom le Kvod Harav > I have some questions about the rules of the Psak Halacha. > Every person who learns Gmara with Rishonim and then Tur, Beit Yosef, > Darkei Moishe and Shulchan Aruch with Poskim sees that there are different > opinions on one topic. For example we have Psak of Mechaber and Ramo > who contradicts him and then Taz disagrees with Ramo and Shach has his > own opinion, and then Pri Megodim paskent his own psak and so on... > 1. So if a person comes to a Rabbi according to whom the Rabbi is > paskening? > Only Pri Megodim? Or Aruch Ashulchan? Or the Rabbi can give the Psak > according to Taz or Shach? A qualified Rav will have the expertise and training to know which of the opinions is the "mainstream" generally accepted by opinion to rule in accordance with, as well as which other opinions may be relied upon in extenuating circumstances. > 2. Can a Rabbi pasken for example according to the Psak of the Rambam > or Rosh or there is a rule that we are pasken only according to Achronim? Our psak is based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama with the opinions of the great poskim after them [mentioned above]. Generally, one can not over ride their psak because of an opinion in the Rishonim which was not codified. > 3. And if there is a Machloket for example between Rav S.Z. Oerbach and > Rav Ovadia Yosef can a Rav give a Psak to a ashkenazic person according to > Rav Ovadia, or to a sephardic person according to Rav Oerbach, or there is > a rule that is not allowed and Rav should pasken to Sepharadim according > Sephardic Poskim and to a Ashkenazim according to Ashkenazic Poskim? Certain areas of halacha are dependant on whether you follow Sefardi or Ashkenazi custom, while aside from that there are many areas where the above luminaries argue in areas not connected to specific lineage in which case a Rav may pasken with either ruling he deems correct. > 4. And how about Orach Chaim should a Rav Pasken according to Mishna > Brurah, or if he wants he can pasken according to Baal Hatanya or Chayey > Odom or Magen Awroom? All of the above are reliable sources for Psak Halacha, when there are disputes, see above 1. > [5]. If there is a sefer where such rules are wriiten? The halachic process is learnt by studying under an experienced qualified Rav who has received this tradition from the generation before him. > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. > Thanks a lot! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 12 19:18:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:18:11 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter Message-ID: When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Sent from my iPad From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 07:55:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: > 5. And the last question: Why Ashkenazim should always go according to > Ramo and Sepharadim according to Machaber? From where it comes? Because > if we speak about question that there is a difference for people in > Germany or Poland and Israel, because of some minhag or climate then > it is understandable. But when there is only machloket in understanding > some Mitzwa Deoraita or Derabanan with no shaichus to differeces in the > lands-so why the people should go according to his Posek-Ramo or Mechaber? One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. The same is true for Sefardim. >> This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of YD and EH -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:11:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:11:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: How can one make coffee on Shabbos? It seems to me that when most people ask this question, the idea of normal brewing is simply dismissed out of hand. Besides the bishul problems, we're dealing with a filter of whatever kind, and that's obviously borer. So, the discussion turns immediately to instant coffee. In my research, I have found that just about every sefer on Bishul B'Shabbos discusses the topic of using tea leaves/bags on Shabbos, but I have not seen even one that discusses using ground coffee on Shabbos. That surprises me, because the halachic issues are very similar: Both involve some sort of cooking (whether of tea leaves or of ground coffee beans), and both involve some sort of straining (whether done by the tea bag or the coffee filter). The two cases can shed light on each other, and when we consider how popular coffee has gotten in recent decades, I wonder why I have not seen anything written on this question. The purpose of this thread will be to suggest that it is indeed muttar to brew fresh ground coffee on Shabbos, subject to specific halachic constraints that we will discuss. (Full disclosure: I am somewhat nogea b'davar. Personally, I am not at all particular about what kind of coffee I drink, but my wife is at the other end of the spectrum. For lack of anything better, she drinks "Starbucks Via" (instant coffee) on Shabbos, and refers to all other instant coffees as "artificially flavored sorta-kinda fake coffee beverage".) I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. Mechaber Orach Chaim 319:9 says that on Shabbos, one *IS* allowed to put shmarim (the leftover grapes that were used to make wine; Feldheim translates as "dregs") in a filter (described in Mishne Brurah 319:31), and pour water over it to produce a drink. There are a couple of conditions, though. The first is that the filter (which Beur Halacha 319:"Afilu" describes as a strainer that is taut over the mouth of a container) must be set up before Shabbos, to prevent the d'Oraisa of Ohel. The second is that the shmarim must have been placed on the filter before Shabbos. MB 319:32 says that this is to prevent borer or m'raked. I understand this MB to mean that if one would place these wet shmarim onto the filter *on* Shabbos, the juice of the grapes would drip through, and this would be the borer or m'raked that he refers to. This seems to be extremely similar to the procedure of a single cup coffee filter. Google that phrase ("single cup coffee filter") if you need to visualize what I'm describing. First we have a single piece of hard plastic, which has a flat bottom so that it can sit on top of your coffee cup, and above it is a cone-shaped portion. Then a paper coffee filter is put into the cone, ground coffee is put into the filter, hot water is poured onto the grounds, and fresh-brewed coffee drips into the cup. The first and most obvious problem is that the coffee grounds are being cooked by the hot water. But (as far as I know) all such grounds are roasted first, making this a textbook case of Bishul Achar Tzli, and so one may certainly pour Kli Shlishi water (Rav Eider, pg 263) or even Irui Kli Sheni (Rabbi Herman in the public shiur) onto the coffee grounds. The rest of this post will focus on the filtering. The first requirement of the Mechaber was that the filter must be set up before Shabbos. This is to ensure that one does not make an Ohel on Shabbos by stretching the filter (a cloth of some sort, I presume) over the container that catches the liquid. I don't think this would apply to our coffee filter setup. See, for example, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat's "The 39 Melochos", pp 1078-1079, that containers may be covered with their designated covers, or even with an undesignated item such as a plate, or a piece of foil (that had been cut before Shabbos), "because these coverings are regularly used for this purpose, and are similar to a designated cover. ... (However, one may not drape a cloth or other undesignated protective covering over a barrel of wine or large trash can because this would indeed constitute an Ohel)." If one can say that the plastic filter-holder is like a plate in this regard, then this would solve that problem. Another way to solve the Ohel problem would be to use a coffee cup whose interior height *or* diameter is less than a tefach. There's no issur of Ohel unless there's at least a tefach of airspace below it, both vertically and horizontally. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 1065) The Mechaber's second requirement was that the shmarim must be in the filter from before Shabbos. This is because putting them there *on* Shabbos would be a clear act of straining their remaining juice from them. (Beur Halacha 319:"Liten bah shmarim") This would not apply to ground coffee, which has no juice of its own. If one puts ground coffee into the filter on Shabbos, there's no way that anything is going to drip out, until and unless one puts water on them. So here is the very simple procedure, almost identical to how one would use this filter on a regular weekday: One puts the holder on top of the cup, the filter into the holder, the roasted ground coffee into the filter, and pour hot water onto the grounds. And in a short while, one has hot fresh coffee in the cup, by the same process that gave the Mechaber a grape drink. One minor change from chol concerns measuring out how much ground coffee to use: One should not measure it exactly, but estimate the desired amount. (Rabbi Ribiat, pg 979, Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 29:34 in the 5740 edition, or 29:36 in the 5770 edition.) [Below, I will mention one other detail to be careful about, based on RSZA.] When I heard all this, I was surprised and confused. Mah Nishtanah, I asked: What makes this filter different from every other strainer and colander and sifter? When the filter allows the coffee (or grape drink) to pass through, while holding back the grounds (or dregs), isn't that a classic case of m'raked? MB 33 answers that: > The shmarim are tzalul, and the water will drip from it with > some of the wine that remains absorbed in it. The reason why > adding water doesn't constitute Borer is because the water > he is adding is tzalul, and doesn't contain anything that > would be removed. I would usually translate "tzalul" as "clear", but in this context, it doesn't mean "colorless", but rather "lacking p'soles". It seems that we look at the plain water at the top, and the flavored water at the bottom, and nothing got removed, so there is no Borer. This is a commonly studied halacha in Hilchos Borer: One may strain a liquid, provided that it is already clean enough that most people would drink it as is, and that he is among that majority. (Someone from the finicky minority, who would not drink it as is, is not allowed to strain it.) When we learn that halacha, we tend to think of it simply, in terms of passing the water through a paper filter or a mesh strainer of some sort. We don?t really perceive anything being held back, nothing significant is prevented from going through, and we figure that?s why no melacha is occurring. But this case seems different. Here we see a mixture of water and grounds, and we see coffee dripping through the filter, and we see the grounds being held back, and we jump to the conclusion that this is clearly Borer. But the point of the Mechaber here is: No, it?s NOT different! The whole process is actually very similar to using tea bags on Shabbos (with Kli Shlishi water) - doesn't the bag prevent the leaves from escaping into the drink? In fact, the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (second paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) cites this very Mechaber and MB to allow making tea on Shabbos by pouring hot water over tea leaves that are in a strainer. (He requires the leaves to be precooked, but that's a bishul issue, and he stresses that there is no borer problem.) That SSK also cites another source, that of Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 53. In that siman, he discusses a faucet to which one has attached a filter to catch impurities. He writes as follows in paragraphs V'im and V'afilu: > If there is a filter on the faucet to filter the water from > sand, then if most people don't refrain from drinking > unfiltered water, it is mutar, as found in Sh"A 319:10. But > if there is so much sand that most people do not drink it > unstrained, then it is assur. > And even when much sand has already accumulated in the > filter, it seems mutar. Even though there is already a lot > of sand in the filter when the water enters it, > nevertheless, since the water flows because a person opened > the faucet, that water is tzalul! Even though it mixes with > the sand afterward, and then goes and gets filtered, this > is not the melacha of Borer, as we learned in ... [Here the > Chazon Ish cites the Gemara that Sh"A 319:9 was based on, > and MB 33 there] At this point, I need to mention another halacha about tea bags. The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata (*first* paragraph of 3:58 in the 5739 edition, or of 3:64 in the 5770 edition) says that those who use tea bags in a Kli Shlishi should be careful to remove the tea bag from one's cup by means of a spoon, and not to lift it by the string, because if any tea drips from the bag to the cup, this would be a "chashash issur" of Borer. In the footnote there, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as distinguishing between this case and that above, because the water is not flowing straight through, but rather > the water and the leaves are already mixed, so by removing > the bag and holding it with his hand, it is like straining > dirty water, not clear water. And if so, on could say that > the same also applies to the Mishmeres [of the Mechaber], > that if it [the bottom of the grape-dregs filter] is > actually inside the grape drink, then it is assur to raise > the filter in order for the water to flow out. But if one > just removes the [tea] bag without any care for the liquid > that comes out, it's likely that even though there's a Psik > Reishei that some drops *will* drip from the bag, > nevertheless, since they come out easily, and all he's > doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining > happens by itself, it is possibly *not* considered Borer. Based on RSZA's words near the end ("all he's doing is picking it up and holding it, and the straining happens by itself") it seems clear to me that if one uses this procedure for using a regular coffee filter to brew his coffee, then he must NOT shake the filter to coax additional liquid coffee from it. (For those who are checking sources, this SSK and RSZA are cited in R' Ribiat's "39 Melachos" on page 519, and footnote 46 there.) So I was wondering... Why hasn't anyone suggested this method of making coffee on Shabbos? Even if a posek feels it would be assur, I wonder if there are any teshuvos explaining that view. As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. So, I am now submitting this post, hoping that either (A) someone can show where this logic is faulty, or (B) someone who is writing the next Bestselling Practical Guide To Keeping Shabbos might spread the secret to Frum Coffee Lovers Everywhere. :-) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 05:54:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the ghettoes Message-ID: <1479045338409.2344@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 14:12 12 They also took Lot and his movable property - [he was] the son of the brother of Avram - and they went, for he was an inhabitant of Sodom. The ghettoes that isolated us worked not only to our disadvantage, but also to our advantage. Those who lived within the ghetto walls were shielded from many evils to which those outside fell victim during the Middle Ages. Jews were not considered good enough to become judges or law-enforcement officials, or to join the retinues of knights. They were not permitted to participate in tournaments, and they took no part in world affairs. But neither did they have a part in the torturing, slaughtering, strangling or incineration of their fellow men. They were often the victims, but never the victimizers. Their hands were not stained with human blood, and when fate caught up with the emperors and their armies, the Jews remained safe in their ghettoes. They should be happy that they were called to the arena of world affairs only now, when the nations of the world are at least trying to act justly and humanely. People who are wholly absorbed in their material desires do not learn from their experience. Lot should have learned from his experience and henceforth avoided the people of Sodom. Nevertheless, when the final catastrophe struck, Lot was still there in Sodom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:46:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: There's debate what nusach the shatz should use in his private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because he's just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as part of tfila b'tzibbur? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 06:48:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A question Message-ID: <24df47d6167445d5a0e24a803b1fd004@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> In s?a O?C 79:6 the mechaber quotes the halacha by saying ?byerushalmi..? what is the purpose of the attribution? Is it in case we were looking for the makor or that it?s ?only? a Yerushalmi ?? The S?A also sometimes quotes specific rishonim ? same question as to why? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 10:14:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07e331a2-03ab-cb9e-df8e-2db2c2422a5a@sero.name> On 12/11/16 22:18, Saul Newman via Avodah wrote: > When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, > does the 'buyer' own anything? No. > Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other than tzedaka? Kesivas sefer torah. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Buying a letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161651.GA13630@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:18pm PST, R Saul Newman wrote: : When various campaigns 'sell' a letter/pasuk/parsha etc in a torah, : does the 'buyer' own anything? Is the buyer mekayem any mitzva other : than tzedaka? Funding the writing of a seifer Torah is tzedaqah, but it is also enabling a mitvah and thereby allows one to share sekhar in that mitzvah. Whether that's called qiyum hamitzvah... Someone who funds another's learning may well share in the sekhar of the mitzvah, but their soul isn't shaped by Torah knowledge or by the experience of acquiring it. He didn't enter R' Chaim Volozhiner's Torah as a miqvah hamitaher... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:19:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113161954.GB13630@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:55pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> One of the cornerstones of halachic practice and Jewish law is :> "mesorah" the tradition passed on from one generation to the next. :> Naturally Ashkenazim throughout the generations followed the psak of :> the Rama which is based on the traditions of the lands they came from. :> The same is true for Sefardim. : This is true for Orach Chaim and much of Yoreh Deah and much of : Even Haezer. It does not seem to be true for Choshen Mishpat and parts of : YD and EH Well, CM is defined mostly by what the two parties agree upon. So social norms have FAR more room to influence outcome. One of the two meanings of "minhag mevatel halakhah" is the CM usage, that if both parties expect a qinyan to occur, or do not expect one, (or one party to have acharyus, or...) that could mean more than whether by default halakhah, it would. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:26:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : My assumption is that the sefardi custom is to make hamotzi on the type of : matzah used for seder night. If that is a soft matzah than the crispy hard : matzah would still be mezonot ad vice vesa Yes, as implied by my question is that it would make more sense if the Sepharadi practice distinguished by kind of matzah. But the fact underlying the question is that in reality, it doesn't. Lemaaseh Sefaradim switch berakhos by date, not by kind of matzah. (Your assumption is at odds with my experience.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 08:37:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161113163710.GE13630@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:33pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote: : I have a major problem with the whole topic. Minhag by definition is a : custom that an individual or community does. Almost by definition it is : dynamic. If one read through Sperber's series on minhagim one will find : loads of customs that no longer exist. But not every communal practice is a minhag. So yes, minhagim are inherently dynamic. But there are limits on valid ways for them to change. Just as there is a minhag shtus when it comes to the creation of a new minhag, there is when it comes to repealing it. (Which after all, just the creation of an alternative minhag of sheiv ve'al ta'aseh.) ... : In practice, if one moves to a community with a different minhag the family : custom disappears within a generation or two. This was certainly the case : in the past... And as we saw in previous iterations, the implication from pereq Maqom sheNahagu, this is also the ideal. But the nature of the modern world is such that rarely move to places that have a single minhag hamaqom. And so minhag avos plays a greater role in practice that at other times in history. This is usually the point in the iteration where I ask if anyone knows of sources from the early days of Ashkenaz, when minhag Ashkenaz was first coalescing, if there is any indication how /they/ handled this challenge. (Difference is, there isn't another couple of centuries left before mashiach and a Sanhedrin totally upend the halachic process. They had time for a minhag hamaqom to coalesce that we won't.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shatz's personal Prayer Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > There?s debate what nusach the shatz should use in his > private amida if his nusach differs from that of the Kahal. > One opinion holds he uses the same as the Kahal because > he?s just practicing for tfilat hatzibbur. If this is the > case, does he not get to make his own personal requests as > part of tfila b?tzibbur? Your point is very logical. But if logic would rule here, then the shatz would also do other things that I don't see done: - If it were a taanis, he'd say the full Aneinu between Geulah and Refuah even in his "practice tefilah". - If it were Nusach Ashkenaz, he'd say L'dor Vador as the third bracha, not Atah Kadosh. - Logically, he would even say the full Kedusha, because he is practicing, right? - If it is Shacharis or Musaf, maybe he should even practice whatever he'll be saying later as Birkas Kohanim! But none of those things are done in the real world, so I think this "use the same words as rehearsing" idea is more of a "rule of thumb", and not as hard and fast as we might think it is. By the way, the examples I gave also illustrate the flip side of RJR's question: If the idea of Chazaras Hashatz is to say it for people who couldn't say their own, then shouldn't it be a carbon copy? Why do we say things in Chazaras Hashatz (Kedusha being the best example) that don't appear in the personal tefila? If Kedushah needs to be said, they could have devised a way to say it without interrupting the Shmoneh Esreh. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:57:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Before getting into the core topic itself, I want to clarify something about the playing field. We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, I won't get very far. More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct. Anyway, the three laws: 1- The Law of Identity: Whatever is, is. A = A. 2- Law of Non-Contradition 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A) But in the real world, we often get propositions about the human condition that is subject to antinomies. As just one of the examples RYBS pointed out (Community), society exists to further the wlefare of its members AND a person's highest calling is to serve his society. Similarly, we take the ambivalence of someone who became suddenly rich by inheritence for granted -- he says both dayan ha'emes and hatov vehameitiv. 3- The Law of Excluded Middle Everything must either be or not be A or not-A But most categories have a huge gray area between them. Is indigo a shade of blue, or of purple. Is an American man who is 5'1" "tall"? In Yiddish, we have the idiom of complementing someone in the negative, "He's not ugly." Or, "She's not dumb." Attempting to avoid giving an ayin hara by only implying handsomeness or brilliance; after all, plain looking people are also "not ugly", and people of normal intelligence are also "not dumb". (This is also part of understanding the machloqes over mikelal lav, atah shomeia' hein. The other part being whether someone would bother saying "If A then B" if they didn't mean "If and only if A, then B." And if not, not. A question of rhetoric, not logic.) If this is true of questions about the human condition, all the more so theological questions or trying to second-guess the Mind of G-d. We can't fully capture the Truth, never mind assign it a boolean white-or-black answer. The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; not a real contradiction. I hope that was enough to raise questions about classical two-valued (true-vs-false) logic. Or even whether it's necessarily the better system. Now to draw a wedge between Western and Rabbinic logic. Rashi says "'Issah' - lashon safeiq" (Kesuvos 14a) An almanah whose family's status is unknown is a "dough", a mixture. Similarly, RYBS proved from hilkhos esrog that the safeiq associated with bein hashemashos is an irbuvia, an "erev" of the two days. An esrog that is set aside for one day's use is assur behanaah that day, and since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's assue the next day too. Notice it's only qadosh during BhS because BhS is part of the prior day, and the qedushah is only extended to the next day because it's simultaneously the next day too. Issah - lashon safeiq. So much for the Law of Contradiction. Or maybe you consider Issah / Erev / Safieq a middle term, a third option, denying the Law of Excluded Middle. Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? Notice RMH quotes the Ritva's citation of Yerushalmi. The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's translation: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them... Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and we choose which version is halakhah. I think in light of these three sources (four, if you want to count Soferim separately)the burden of proof is on someone who says that pesaq creates laws through extrapolation or interpolation from existing Torah, rather than selecting among pre-existing options. One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just rely on the use of the word emes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 21:41:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these > terms as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' butthe rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, /rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu halacha/.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them so that they no longer contradict. RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.''Parness echad amran'': You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the considerations change over according to /slight changes in circumstances/, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''sheker,''and we /cannot/ apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if there two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''erred,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, and whether they say it is so according to the mashmaos or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said > before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He > responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be > interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The object is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our own minds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > ... > To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. Translating ''klall yivadda bo ha-emmess'' as ''a rule whose truth is manifest'' is wrong, changes the meaning,. The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to reject it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons ? behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the ? ?[arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We ? believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed ? ?[intrinsically] harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our ? souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process. ? Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is ? tamei is] tahor, so what?!/ Won't it still harm us and produce its ? natural effect, whatever it is? ?...It would therefore seem that we ? preferably /should/ follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which ? would tell us the true nature of the thing.? The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? the benefit accrued.? So the Ran's take is that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does /not/ go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He /does/ advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does /not/ merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking /a/ right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim, the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 8 rishonim. Do you have 9 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maharal and Murkav.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32698 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RASHI on from one shepherd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??? ?????? ????? ??.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ????? ?? ?.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271258 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:34:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag Message-ID: <> What is the difference between a community practice and minhag? Is a public fast on Sivan 20 a community practice or a minhag? Talking with a friend recently he noted that in the askenazi kDL in EY kitniyot is slowly being eliminated. A number of major rabbis now pasken that lechatchila kitniyot is batel be-rov. http://www.vosizneias.com/80925/2011/04/14/efrat-rabbi-eases-restrictions-of-kitniyot-for-ashkenazi-jews/ Others allow various new kitniyot oils like canola oil see for example http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=1400 . http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/rabbanut-says-canola-oil-is-not-kitniyot.html Most Israeli Ashkenazi shuls say ein kelokenu every day. A number of these shuls say hoshana immediately after Hallel during chol hamoed succot. <> I would guess that the minhag of the shul and especially the yeshiva has an equal impact to family customs. Many (Most?) ashkenazim (at least in EY) hold the first 33 days of the Omer for not having weddings. A running battle with the chief rabbi of my town (a sefardi) who refuses to allow ashkenazim to hold a wedding after lag ba-omer because its against the Rama. Explaining that it is not my mionhag gets you nowhere - he decides what your minhag should be. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 11:55:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How a Jew Should Conduct Himself in Golus Message-ID: <1479066995315.53958@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:13 13 And the escapee came and brought the news to Avram the Ivri. [Avram] was then dwelling in the groves of Mamre the Emori,brother of Eshkol and of Aner; they were the masters in a covenant with Avram. There are two types of bris: (a) a covenant between equals; (b) a covenant between two unequal parties, where one accepts the other in a bond of friendship, adding him to his faction, so that the other is subordinate to him. Our verse speaks of a covenant of the second type. Avraham did not seek an alliance with Mamre and his kinsmen; rather, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, the natives, took the initiative and made a covenant with Avraham, the stranger. They were the ba'alim of the bris. Not only Mamre, in whose territory Avraham lived, but his kinsmen, too, recognized Avraham's imposing personality and enlisted him as their ally. Avraham's conduct should serve as a model for his descendants throughout the generations, as long as they live as zerah Avraham in a land not theirs, b'eretz lo lahem. A Jew should conduct himself as a Jew, loving peace, and should not interfere with affairs that are not his. He should develop and shape his own affairs, and attend to Israel's needs. The result will be that the other peoples will seek to enlist him as an ally - not vice versa. Every person of purity will recognize that true, complete Judaism is the most perfect conception of humanity - not vice versa. For the concept "Jew" is broader than the concept "man." A Jew need only be a Jew, in the full and complete sense of the word. If he behaves in this manner, then, although he will be only a shochan, he will win the esteem of the other peoples, and they will enlist him in their bris. Avraham did not purchase this alliance relationship at the cost of abandoning his own calling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on matza In-Reply-To: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> References: <20161113162607.GD13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> R. Gigo of Har Etzion paskens that a sefardi can say hamotzi on a sweet challah even though it has a distinct sweet taste because it is considered bread bt the general public. I know other sefardi rabbis disagree basically because if the Mechaber paskens we cant change the halacha because people's definition of bread changes -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 12:49:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:49:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to pasken Message-ID: <> Nevertheless there are arguments between the Mechaber and Ramah in CM. A lot has to do that you can't run a bet din where for every monetary argument you begin- by asking if the claimants are ashkenazi or sefardi. I note that in many discussions of R Zilberstein he treats a disagreement between the Mechaber and Ramah in monetary laws as any other machloket and applies the usual halachot of "ha motzi mechavero alav haraaya" etc. I would assume that is the general way batei dinim hold -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 13 13:25:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtut Message-ID: I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial 1) Is believing in segulot a minhag shtut? Some on this list think so but many Jews beleive in them BTW tonight there is a super-moon ( http://earthsky.org/tonight/most-super-supermoon) and there is a special prayer for refuah of the family 2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or an accepted minhag - depends who you ask 3) RYBS was against the minhag to have the tefillin with a square knot. A square knot is not a double daled. OTPH many people do wear the square knot etc -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 14 03:02:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah She-be-al Peh Message-ID: I think that the following regarding the Oral Torah is important to know. The following is from http://www.morashasyllabus.com/class/Jewish%20Law%20II.pdf beginning on page 6. Rambam, Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter 10 ? There has always been an Oral Torah The eighth Fundamental Principle of Judaism is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty. All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah [the Oral Torah], which was also received from the mouth of the Almighty. The manner in which we today perform the mitzvot of Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzit, Tefillin, and other items is precisely the way that God, blessed be He, told Moshe, who then informed us. And the one whom God appointed as an agent is surely to be relied upon. There are hints in the written text to the fact that the Written Torah was given together with the Oral Torah. Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:46 with Commentary of Rashi ? There are two Torahs, both given to Moshe by God. These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moshe. Rashi ? and the Torahs [Why the plural form, ?Torahs? ? This denotes two Torahs]: One Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all was given to Moshe on [Mount] Sinai. [Torat Kohanim 26:54 Moshe was taught both on Mount Sinai. Devarim 9:10 and Talmud Yerushalmi, Megillah 28a ? Moshe was taught all of the Oral Torah. God gave me the two stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God. And upon them was [it written] according to all the words that God declared to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the Day of Assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The text does not say, ?upon them? rather ?and upon them?; not ?words? rather ?the words?; not ?all? rather ?according to all.? These extra words allude to Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah. Even what an experienced student was destined to rule before his teacher was already said to Moshe at Sinai. And so it is written, ?Is there a matter about which one can say ?Look, this is new!?? To which his fellow will reply, ?It has already been in the times that came before us?? (Kohelet 1:10). Moshe then transmitted all that he was taught by God, both the Written and the Oral Torah Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 54b ? The Oral Torah was taught to Moshe and transmitted by him to the entire nation. Our Rabbis taught: What was the procedure of the instruction in the Oral Torah? Moshe learned directly from God. Then Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his lesson. Aharon then moved aside and sat down on Moshe? left. Thereupon, Aharon?s sons entered and Moshe taught them this lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moshe? right and Ithamar on Aharon?s left. Rabbi Judah stated: Aharon was always on Moshe?s right. Thereupon, the elders entered, and Moshe taught them the lesson. When the elders moved aside, all the people entered, and Moshe taught them the same lesson. It thus followed that Aharon heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moshe departed, and Aharon taught them the same lesson. Then Aharon departed, and his sons taught them the lesson. His sons then departed, and the elders taught them the lesson. It thus followed that everyone heard the same lesson four times From all of this it seems to me that Torah she-be-al peh was given with precision and definiteness to Moshe and transmitted by him to the nation of Israel and on and on for generations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 12:43:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n147, RAMiller laid out a case for legally brewing coffee on Shabbos.... > I will now describe the halachos as I heard them on Shabbos Bereshis, from Rabbi Avrohom Herman, rav of the JEC Elmora Shul in Elizabeth, at his short Hilchos Shabbos shiur during Kabalas Shabbos. I am also including a great deal of my own research that I did based on the sources that he cited, and elsewhere. < Having been at that same *shiur* (and the one, last Friday night, which followed), two brief comments.... -1- R'Akiva mentions *ohel* (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not mention) as well as *bishul* and *boreir*. Neither he nor RAH mentioned *tzoveya *. I brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that Rav Teitz [REMT] was *machmir* on [at least, IIUC] culinary-liquids *tzoveya*. > As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: ? > ? > Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using ? > ? > a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds ? > ? > down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ? > ? (For those who want to see how a French Press works, there's a very simple video on the Wikipedia page. It's only 66 seconds long, and the first half of that shows him grinding the coffee beans.) > I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of removing the pesoles from the ochel. < -2- IINM, RAH definitely forbade use of a French press on Shabbos at last Friday night's *shiur*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:39:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161115213951.GA5991@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 08:11:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As it turns out, this exact question was raised on these very pages eight : years ago, by R' Stephen Scher, in Avodah 25:425. That thread got only a : few responses, mostly about the bishul issues. One point was about borer, : from R' Micha Berger, who wrote: : :> Also, to get around the boreir problem.... Instead of using :> a regular filter, use a french press. They push the grounds :> down to the bottom, allowing you to pour okhel mitokh pesoles. ... : I disagree. There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second : step, you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. Well to be fair, I chimed in once someone else took the topic to tea. The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So let's just say you don't.) In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be boreir. Personally, I make tea using a teamaker of this sort (albeit cheaper brand) . The filter is on the bottom, with a valve that keeps the water in as long as the maker is standing on its legs. Put it on a cup, and it's the valve that is supporting the weight. The valve opens, the tea comes out. I think using that on Shabbos one could argue that you could see the filter as holding back the leaves, and thus pesoles mitokh okhel, as much as one could see it as the okhel mitokh pesoles of letting only the tea fall out. OTOH, given that the tea stays put, and anyone who sees that thing would see it as letting the tea fall into the cup... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 13:37:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 04:21 PM 11/15/2016, R Eli Turkel wrote: >I am not sure what a minhag shtus is - many are controversial > >2) not eating in the succa on shemini atzeret (outside EY) is this wrong or >an accepted minhag - depends who you ask I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, and the response was the same. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> > I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that > says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, > but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur > raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the > succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such > minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, > and the response was the same. There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:37:20PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that : says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini : Atzeres, but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was : at the shiur raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to : not eat in the succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, : "There is no such minhag!"... Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. Which I would guess was RAM's point. If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, or do we need active rejection? What if a meaning could be invented, something one can learn from the minhag, but it's an invention the rabbi himself came up with? For example, if Purim costumes really do imitate Carnivale. Or if milchig on Shavuos really did start because that's when the milk is at its best after a long winter of milk from dry hay fed cows and much of Europe had milk festivals in this season? And so the reasons we all repeat were indeed such post-facto inventions. If those histories were found to be more than theories, would that make these minhagim "shtus" and to be dropped? But returning to the case of Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the Minchas Elazar offers a counter-argument by explaining the gemara as being rhetorical. The gemara (Sukkah 47a): Vehilkhita: meisav yasvinan, berukhei lo mevarekhinan. Pashut peshat, and the majority minhag: Sitting, we sit, [but] a berakhah we do not bless. But the ME supports the Chassidish practice by noting that if this were indeed peshat, the gmore naturally say "yasvinan velo mevorkhinan". There is an implied tone here, and the ME says it's bitmihah: Is it possible that it comes to sitting we sit, even though when iu comes to the berakhah we cannot make the berakhah?" The problem I have with this read is that "berukhei nami mevarkhinan" vs "berukhei lo mevorkhinan", withut being tied to a phrase about sitting, appears earlier in this sugya. R' Tzadoq has a LONG defense . Among his more interesting points is a proof that many rishonim must have had this line in their editions of the gemara! (Perhaps related: It is academic consensus that the "hilkhita" closings we find on many sugyos are among the latest additions to the text.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:15:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69ed3dae-12d1-d1f8-de51-f21d1a9486b9@sero.name> On 15/11/16 15:43, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > -1- R'Akiva mentions /ohel/ (which, AFAIK, Rabbi Herman [RAH] did not > mention) as well as /bishul/ and /boreir/. Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. ? Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 14:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> Message-ID: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>and the response was the same. > >There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan sevora'i). He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:07:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20161115221559.GB5991@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6664bb14-6157-2f4f-e68d-8bfbf177056c@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If the process of creating minhag is as I described, I am wondering about > practices that caught on among the people but could not be justified > by the rabbinate. Not rejected, that's the case just discussed. But > no deep meaning could be found either. Would that be a minhag shetus, > or do we need active rejection? I haven't got the time now to find the source, but I am certain that I've seen it written that no minhag is real unless it was endorsed by the LOR of the place where it was introduced. If we see that a minhag is established and treated as such we assume that there was such rabbnic backing, but if we know there wasn't then it's not a minhag. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 16:42:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding a French Press, I wrote: : There is a two-step process here. I concede that in the second step, : you "pour okhel mitokh pesoles", just as if you had waited for the : grounds to settle to the bottom. But the first step, when you "push the : grounds down to the bottom", that is (at least to me) a clear act of : removing the pesoles from the ochel. And R' Micha Berger responded: > The difference is that with the press as far down as it goes, there is > a lot of drinkable tea still beneath it. The leaves only take up a miut > of the space. (At least, on my bodum press. Perhaps other presses let > the filter go all the way to the bottom, if you push far enough. So > let's just say you don't.) > > In the case I was discussing, I don't think the first step would be > boreir. Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south side. But no! Since the north side has been improved by the removal of the psoles, this is borer. I also see similarity to the case of a salt shaker that has rice in it to absorb the moisture. Just because the rice and salt remain mixed inside, that doesn't make it okay to shake pure salt through the tiny holes in the cover. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:26:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and, Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somehow, my response to RMB's post was published in the previous day's Avodah (Vol. 34, Number 148 Message #2 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n148.shtml#02), which I stayed up to the wee hours to compose so that it would appear together with what RMB wrote, so as not to burden the reader with re-quotes. As it appeared, it must have been confusing to the reader, since he did not know to what I was responding. So I'm resubmitting my response again (with a few additions) with the points of RMB I'm addressing only briefly restated. > RMB: ...We grow up in a culture where Aristotle's Logic is well embedded. The 3 > Classical Laws of Thought appear self-evident. But to show that we should > neither accept 2 of them uncritically or even assume that Chazal agreed. > > After all, I am asserting that the majority position among rishonim, > and the way of of us do halakhah today is in defiance of at least one of > these laws. Until I can establish that chazal didn't hold of such things, > I won't get very far. > > More than that, I want to argue that our default position should be that > both opinions were given at Sinai, that neither side of a machloqes > is "wrong", despite the fact that they disagree. That machloqes is > about which correct answer is being made law. And that in fact, the > burden of proof is on the position RMHalbertal ascribes to the Rambam, > that machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah > is correct. > > Anyway, the three laws: > > 1- The Law of Identity: > Whatever is, is. > A = A. > > 2- Law of Non-Contradition > 2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same > sense at the same time > not (A and not-A)... > 3- The Law of Excluded Middle > Everything must either be or not be > A or not-A > The Maharal explains machloqes in these terms. > We have conflicting models of a Truth that can't fit in this world; > not a real contradiction. > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. > > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > > > Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 : Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on."And Hashem spoke to Moshe." ... "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai story > ... if it was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we possibly choose rabbim > over siyata diShmaya? > > The Ran's justification of acharei rabim lehatos is similar. RMH's > translation: > ... Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution > every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule whose > truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the > sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been > delegated to them... > > Again, the Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law of > Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of maximizing > the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given methodology > for picking/a/ right answer. And Moshe was given all the Torah, even > derabbanans -- or at least divrei soferim (megillah is which?) -- and > we choose which version is halakhah. > > One last note, as part of this laying-the-groundwork email: > > I drew a distinction between finding Truth and finding Law. Realized that > in rabbinic idiom, this could be referred to as Emes vs Din. But it is > also -- perhaps more often -- phrased as Emes leAmito vs Emes leHoraah. > > One needs to see what kind of emes a rishon is describing, and not just > rely on the use of the word emes. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms as well. > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." ZL: You take it as '' pashut peshat''that ''divrei E-lokim chaim''means ''true [despite being contradictory],'' but the rishonim I will cite below hold that what you consider ''pashut peshat'' is not correct peshat. MAHARAL You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations. He gives the example of a tree. It is composed of all four elements, but there is an overriding one that determines that it is a tree. In halacha, too, he says, although there are properties [in things or situations] that point to divergent conclusions, ''only one of them is the main, overpowering one, and that is the determining factor, and that is the halacha.'' (''V'chein, af sheyeish l'davar echad bechinos mischalafos--kulam nitnu min Hashem, //rak ki echad mei-hem yoseir ikkar, v'hu hamachria, v'hu /// // /halacha//.'') That Maharal is explaining ''kulam mi-ro'eh echad nitnu.'' ''Eilu v'Eilu,'' he maintains, implies that the determining components are actually present in equal strength. He says that this is ''sometimes'' the case, and such was the case regarding the disputes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel concerning which the Bas Kol declared that there was no machria. Even if you consider this to be supportive of your view (I don't), the Maharal applies this to a limited amount of cases, and does not make it into the general rule as you do. CHAZAL You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction. If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of them, so that they no longer are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. RABBEYNU CHANANALE Chagiga 3b tells us that despite the fact that different groups of Chazal give contradictory rulings, one should not despair of learning Torah, because ''kulan Kel echad amran, Parness echad amran.'' As Meharsha states, this is similar to the ''eilu v'eilu'' adage and should be understood the same way. Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' is, Rabbeynuu Chananale tells us it means, ''Acquire a heart to hear eilu v'eilu, for all of them clarify themseves to you which of them is clear halcha. For although they seem as if they are arguing, they go on to vote and decide and agree in the end (/sheh-kulan misbarerin lecha b-ayzeh mayhen halacha berurah. She-af-al-pi sheh-nirrin kmo cholkin, chozrin v-nimnin v-gomrin umaskimin b-sof/.) Nothing about ''all sides being true.'' RASHI Despite what one may think ''pashut peshat'' of ''kulan Kel echad amran'' is, Rashi (Chagigah 3b) explains it to mean ''you don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' That's the characterization Rashi gives to the many divergent opinions among the chachamim. Not that they are ''all true.'' All it means, as he goes on to explain, is ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying //sometimes// this consideration is appropriate and //sometimes// that one is, because the considerations change over according to //slight changes in /// // /circumstances//, he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' And that is why he says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying ''/sheker/,''and we //cannot// apply ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim'' to such a situation. When TOSEFOS on the same daf says that if two Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them ''/erred/,'' it is because he is working with the logic that ''2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time not (A and not-A).'' When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. (Yes, the same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions,but who concludes that ''that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar.'' And pardon me, but I cannot accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the beginning or the end.) RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred, and that one must accept the interpretation of pesukim by the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalayim whether they received it from Moshe from Hashem, or they say it is so according to the mashma-os or intent of the mikreh. He is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a /specific intent/, and one that is subject to error. TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is mutar it cannnot be assur, and if something is assur it cannot be mutar." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. He evidently takes ''divrei Elokim Chaim'' in the sense that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of serious consideration. SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will always conform to the truth more than the minority. This puts him together with all these other rishonim who hold that ''machloqes is about which extrapolation from established halakhah is correct,'' and not ''which correct answer is being made law.'' [Regarding the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 and Sofrim 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ..."Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. Why would we be at a disadvantage if we were explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise? Probably the thought is that it would be impossible to carry all those details in our minds. Instead, we were given klallim, the correct application through which each situation could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that there is a correct conclusion to reach for. > > And then there's the problem of explaining the Tanur shel Akhnai > story if we're seeking the One True Pesaq. We got the siyata > diShmaya; if [the Bas Kol] was telling us the One True Pesaq, how could we > possibly choose rabbim over siyata diShmaya? The objective is to uncover the original intent, but Hashem in His wisdom imposed upon us the requirement that our endeavor to do so must be restricted to what we can arrive at through our ownminds' use of the interpretive tools he gave us, and not through any new revelations. Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha. What then was the purpose of the there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon (Brachos 19b). (1) The Bas Kol declaring [out of respect for R. Eliezer] that the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, meant it usually does, but not necessarily here, or something similar. (2) It was a test for the Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of /lo /// // /bashamayim hee/, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). To support your take that -- >Divrei Elokim Chaim is described as going beyond the Law > of Contradiction. Majority opinion isn't advocated as a way of > maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, but the given > methodology for picking /a/ right answer. --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends Yet [God] also gave him a > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision > had already been delegated to them... I feel frustrated because in my last post I already pointed out that this is a mistranslation, and the correct translation contradicts the thesis. The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, //aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess//. ''/klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/'' does not translate''arule whose truth is manifest.'' The correct translation is But [God] gave him a rule //through which one knows the truth//, 'Favor the majority opinion'... And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he is referring only to ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this is again something I already cited last time but will repeat again): In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: Since the words of those who declare something tamei and those who ? declare it tahor are intrinsically contradictory, it is impossible for ? both sides of the dispute to be conforming to the Truth. How then could ? we say that they were both told to Moses by G-d? Does G-d have any ? doubts as to what the Truth is?! And he then suggests the approach that the sages only established ''Emes leHoraah vs Emes leAmito." But he then goes on to/reject /it for the overwhelming majority of cases: Now, this approach will satisfy those who hold that there are no reasons behind the mitzvos at all and that they all simply follow the [arbitrary] Will of G-d .... But we do not choose this approach. /We/// / / /believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed/ // // // /[intrinsically] harmful to us, //and creates a negative imprint on our/// // // // /souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that process./ // // // /Therefore, if the consensus of the Sages is that something [that is/ // // // /tamei is] tahor, so what?!// Won't it still harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it is? ...It would therefore seem that we preferably //should// follow the revelation of a prophet or Bas Kol, which would tell us the true nature of the thing. The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic questions. //For in the majority of cases this/// // // // /will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the/ // // // /correct decision//.... And even though there is the extremely remote and practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for the benefit accrued. So the Ran's take is that the halacha represents the /true nature/ of things. He holds that as a rule ''Divrei Elokim Chaim'' does //not// go beyond the Law of Contradiction. He //does// advocate majority opinion as a way of maximizing the chance of getting the One Right Answer, and does //not// merely advocate it as the given methodology for picking //a// right answer. Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) ''Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of Moshe'' (''shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim b-nosei echad''), and the acharonim (who I listed in the original post), the various explanations of ''eilu eilu'' avoid conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction and assume its necessity. So as far as the consensus of rishonim is concerned, I'm making my case from Rabbeynu Chananale, Rashi, Tosefos, Tos. Rabbeynu Peretz, Ramban, Ritva, the Ran and Sefer HaChinuch. That's 9 rishonim. Do you have 10 that say otherwise? Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 15:09:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <61.8B.10233.9308B285@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <70855e3f-cea8-378a-9e99-f5d8c3fd8e01@sero.name> <49.DC.15750.ABF8B285@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <9bcfa10b-9dd0-a8c8-6900-bce25a724799@sero.name> On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that >>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres, >>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur >>> raised his hand and said, "What about the minhag to not eat in the >>> succah on ST?" R Miller responded categorically, "There is no such >>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question, >>> and the response was the same. >> >> There clearly *is* such a minhag. That he was unaware of it doesn't >> change that fact. aiui those who follow it hold, and have a >> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan >> sevora'i). > > He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST. His point was > that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz > l'aretz. This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag." That was his opinion. He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with rabbinic backing. Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag. The basis is the opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 17:23:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:23:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161116012332.GA13519@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the : way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it : is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter? : : If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north : side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south : side... What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure to remove tea with the bag? Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. Which is this? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 21:48:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:48:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to separate without transgressing. Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to identify and remove the unwanted. A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it. If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem. If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot, we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string. Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which prevents us from squeezing the bag. Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing a tea bag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 15 22:47:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:47:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect of Halacha. As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour, which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha. Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest. It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:31:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043301d24016$22ce9db0$686bd910$@com> Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos. Both said it was mutar. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 03:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:46:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7171C9-E17C-4DAF-85AD-D7355DB22DD2@balb.in> I looked into this here https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 06:49:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?What=92s_the_proper_procedure_for_netil?= =?windows-1252?q?as_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= Message-ID: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once, on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should then be repeated for the left hand. One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf (Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 10:41:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_proper_procedure_for_netila?= =?utf-8?q?s_yadayim_before_eating_bread=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> References: <1479307818367.37691@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <51755138-109d-58cb-0ba2-c1ff0a43fc7b@sero.name> On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf > /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too > often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) > > One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them > (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). > Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* the shifshuf, isn't it? -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. In the same digest, in response to my writing > Neither he nor RAH mentioned > /tzoveya /. I > brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that > Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC] > culinary-liquids /tzoveya/. R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?" REMT clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be *machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 18:36:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:36:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus Message-ID: In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote: > Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. < OK, so from BT Sukah 42a and ?RaMBaM H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) until marriage is *shtus*? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 03:11:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: <> As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules 2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points (1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle we can discuss the rules themselves (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. (A) one object is not a heap (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 16 19:51:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger raised several points: > What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making > sure to remove tea with the bag? > > Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel. > > Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel. I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter on Borer: >>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection" not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible. Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is selecting, there is no issur of Borer. He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the "A10" makes the reference unmistakable.) >>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon. Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at all.) Conclusions: If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking some tea with it. BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves. Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:18:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points ... > (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today > there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this. > > RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. > (A) one object is not a heap > (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle. If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair *does* change someone from bald to not bald. If we define bald as meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the boundary. Because there /is/ a boundary. A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being described. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 05:41:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:41:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: > A heap is not rigorously defined. Nor is a crumb. Half a crumb is a > crumb. The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be > using the word are linguistic constructs. Real things have attributes that > can be defined rigorously. Vague language does not equal the thing being > described. Almost everything in physics (quantum mechanics being an exception) is a continuum not discrete and certainly not binary [Email #2, a correction. -micha] Correction to my post - Even quantum mechanics is not really discrete as it is a probability function. However returning to Lisa's comments: "The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language." Basically everything real is an artifact of vague language A specific example is the definition of a Rasha. Rambam defines a Rasha as someone who has more sins and a tzaddik is one who has more mitzvot and a benoni is in the middle, This definition is very strange. First the chances of sins and mitzvot being exactly equal (given any set of weighting for them) is essentially zero. More important for our discussion I would suggest there is no such thing as a rasha. One can be or less a rasha and more a less a tzaddik. It is a continuum There is no excluded middle (even with benoni as a third choice). Many others have therefore used different definitions than the Rambam which indeed depend on ones direction rather than any absolute definition -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:22:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] logic In-Reply-To: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> References: <4df2376e-e913-0240-9327-0dbe3f80fe16@starways.net> Message-ID: <20161117172216.GC19258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: :> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap. :> (A) one object is not a heap :> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap : The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. : Bald isn't rigorously defined. If it were, we'd be back to excluded : middle... You're assuming the universe is quantized. Most real things are continua. (And the quantum world itself is definitely non-boolean; .) In a world in which all the shades of grey exist, there wil perforce be problems rigorously defining predicates. BTW, RMA's "favorite example" is original formulation of the sorites paradox", one of the 7 classical paradoxes of by Eubulides of Miletus (4th cent BCE). "Sorites" comes from the ancient Greek word for heap. In the Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pg 1047) the sorites paradox is indeed blamed on vagueness. It's just that thinking in vague predicates are necessary, as argued above, since many things in this world are measured rather than counted. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 07:30:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <1479396702136.31901@stevens.edu> The following is from today's Daf Hayomi B"Halacha The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Someone who smelled the aroma of a food but was unable to eat it should not swallow the saliva that formed in his mouth because of the food. Swallowing this saliva can be dangerous and cause harm. Instead, one should spit out this saliva. If a guest enters while the host is eating a fragrant food which could cause the guest to salivate, it is proper to offer him some of the food to save him from a dangerous situation. As such, hosts have developed the practice of inviting people present to share in their meals. Guests, however, are forbidden from offering outsiders who were not invited by the host to participate in the meal unless they are certain that the host will not mind. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ? ???, ????"? ?"? ????; ??????? ??????? ????, 1) Waiters In order to protect him from this danger, a waiter [who is not a member of the seuda] must be given a taste of every fragrant food that is served. If many fragrant foods are served at one meal, he should receive a bit of each one. It is laudable to offer the waiter a little of every food that he serves, fragrant or not. If, at the time the waiter was hired, the host stipulated that the waiter may not taste the foods, the stipulation is not binding and the waiter is entitled to taste each food. One is not required to give the waiter a special portion if he is authorized to help himself from the food. Likewise, it is not necessary to give the waiter a separate portion in places where the waiter joins the family at the table. (???? ?, ?"? ?, ????"? ?"? ??, ?"? ???? ??"? ???) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 09:05:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : OK, so from BT Sukah 42a : and RaMBaM : H.Tzitzis 3 :8-10 all the way : through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different : conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among : non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) : until marriage is *shtus*? Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 10:15:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:15:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? Message-ID: >> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf >> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too >> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b) >> >> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them >> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42). >> >Aren't these instructions in the wrong order? The bracha is *before* >the shifshuf, isn't it? According to Aroch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 158:16, the brachah precedes shifshuf. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brewing coffee on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: > In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the > French press. Just to clarify RAH's position, published in > the previous digest, he forbade the French press on Shabbos > because it's a k'li, even though one is still obtaining > ochel mitoch p'soles. Several people have expressed this view, that the French press is ochel mitoch p'soles. I do not understand this at all. When one pushes down on the filter, that pushes the leaves down to the bottom of the k'li, away from the clear liquid at the top of the k'li. Isn't this a clear and simple case of p'soles mitoch ochel? Similarly, R' Isaac Balbin linked to https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos who wrote: > Consider two distinct stages in the birth of the final coffee > product. The first is when the stem is pushed down into the > glass press, thereby forcing the ground coffee to the bottom > of the glass. What act is being performed during this stage. > In my opinion, this is an act of diversion/casting aside. The > coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has > it become separated from the coffee liquid above. For there > to be an act of borer, I understand that the undesirable needs > to be removed from the desirable. I would argue that it has > not been removed, but has been forced into a new section of > the glass environment. I don't follow this logic at all. If the p'soles "has been forced into a new section of the glass environment", then it most certainly has been removed! He says that "The coffee is moved down to the bottom, but at no time does has it become separated from the coffee liquid above." At no time? That's exactly what happens when the grounds are pushed to the bottom, isn't it? Perhaps people are hung up on the idea that one is *pushing* the p'soles away. Do they think that borer is violated only when one brings the p'soles close to oneself? If that were so, there would be very simple solutions to most situations. (Don't like peas mixed in with your carrots? No problem - just push them away! I don't think so.) I don't understand what these people are saying. I am open to new ideas. What point am I missing? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 17 18:40:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:40:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Shin Prefix In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 4, 2016 06:25:12 am Message-ID: <1479436817.aDa60.15929@m5.shachter> > > ("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the > historical period from seifer Yeho[s]hua through Shemu'el. > Unless it appears in Genesis 6:3, where it is a pattax followed by a dagesh xazaq, which is of course the same thing as a qamatz when the following letter cannot take a dagesh xazaq. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 18 02:30:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] logic Message-ID: << If Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. >> I (RMA) already pointed out that the chiddush of Aristotle was that he set up rules of logic. Sure everyone befoire him used logic as a tool but Aristotle made it formal. If today the study of logic is an academic topic it is because of Aristotle and not Chazal, Moshe Rabbenu etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 19 11:18:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki Message-ID: <936ee679-61d1-5e5d-f6a6-ca2408419a0b@zahav.net.il> What is Redemption? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the first chapter of his book ?Netzach Yisrael? the Maharal of Prague defines the concept of redemption based on his view of the exile. By doing this he makes use of a common theme in his way of looking at things: The Unity of Opposites. An idea can often best be defined by understanding its opposite. Thus, black is used in defining white and evil is used when trying to define good. Thus, the Marahal defines exile as having three elements: The exit from the natural habitat (Eretz Yisrael), dispersion among the other nations, and being ruled by another nation. This means that redemption, the opposite of exile, is characterized by three elements: return to the proper place, ingathering of the exiles, and national independence. Note that the definitions of exile and redemption do not have any spiritual characteristics. Redemption is a political action. As opposed to Christian belief, which views redemption as a spiritual and mystical event where the soul is rescued from the impurity of its sins and from eternal hell, Judaism is not explicitly worried about the fate of the soul ? after all, ?Every person of Yisrael has a place in the world to come? [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]. Judaism rejects the concept of a deity which is hostile to mankind and seeks revenge. The main task which mankind is required to perform is ?tikun,? mending the ways of this world. Since the main power that moves historical events in this world is political the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Avraham a role which was in essence political ? to create a nation within boundaries of a specific land - that is, to establish a country. There are spiritual processes that take place based on the redemption, such as repentance, world peace, the return of prophecy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and more. But these are consequences of the redemption and not part of its essence. There is a powerful dispute between two great men, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether redemption depends on prior repentance by Yisrael or not (Sanhedrin 97b-98a). No matter how this dispute is decided, the very fact that the question is discussed in this way shows that everybody agrees that redemption is not repentance itself but rather a process that takes place in parallel with it. Among the holidays which the Torah has given us, there is a difference between Pesach, when we celebrate the liberation of 600,000 idol worshippers from Egypt, and Shavuot, which marks the giving of the Torah. It is true that the two holidays are linked together by the counting of the Omer, but in any case the Torah did not imply that the national holiday of Pesach depends on the existence of the Torah holiday of Shavuot. In fact, the opposite is true: The precondition for being given the Torah was the redemption from Egypt. Even if an enlightened Pharaoh had granted Yisrael religious freedom in Egypt, this would not be the Torah of Yisrael, since it would not include a basis of political independence. Only in this way is it possible to achieve the great vision that ?All the families of the world will be blessed through you? [Bereishit 12:3]. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 01:26:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: I have brought up in the past the chassidic custom with regard to eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) where some declare it a minhag shtus while large groups of religious people follow the custom. I am now preparing a shiur on another such. The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 06:58:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey on Thanksgiving Message-ID: <1479653861029.34780@stevens.edu> Before I point to web sites dealing with this issue, let's deal with "Is Turkey kosher? See http://tinyurl.com/jycx7os and http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part5/ Regarding eating turkey on Thanksgiving see http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Vol8Issue8.pdf Where it says Conclusion There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Also see there the discussion regarding the kashrus of turkey. YL Con -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 15:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117170506.GC14739@aishdas.org> <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: ?In Avodah V34n152, R'Micha responded to my suggestion (that "the prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*) ? until marriage" ? would be an example of a " minhag that contradicts halakhah ")? with ?> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing a four cornered garment during tefillah. ? < ? ?*Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*.? ? > ? One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that without the "derashah", it would be very strange. < >From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). While on the subject (regardless of whether the noted "prevalent *minhag* among non-Yekke Ashk'nazim" is contrary to *halacha* or merely "very strange"), I would further suggest that *b'nei mitzva* be encouraged by listmembers (and anyone else reading this; naturally, in consultation with your Rav) to ask for a *talis* as a BM gift (or to invest some of the BM-gift cash in a *talis*) and to be *misateif* during davening. For me, the benefits are incalculable, and the few times I've davened Shacharis without a *talis* (e.g. when unexpectedly away from home overnight into the morning), I felt relatively naked! Ask yourself: is it really more important (especially if you're a [budding] *talmid chacham*, for whom RamBaM considers not wearing a *talis* a "*g'nai gadol*") to visibly wear your not-yet-married status like a badge of courage rather than to fulfill a *mitzva* like this one, whose critical nature is noted day and night in the 3rd *parasha* of Q'riyas Shma and which can provide you with incalculable benefit? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 17:17:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo Message-ID: A few weeks ago, I wrote: : I question the whole logic of "since matzo is the bread on those days." : Are the definitions of Pas Habaah B'Kisnin so flexible that they would : vary from one part of the year to another? I do not see evidence of : this flexibility. R' Micha Berger answered: > Isn't this case itself the evidence your looking for? > > Sepharadim appear to say that it is context sensitive, like depending > on the part of the year. Whereas Ashenazim *might* well hold that being > used like bread part of the year means it is used like bread, full-stop. > > But I see what you're saying, it tends to differ by function. Like bagel > chips. If they were made to be bagels and only toasted after baking, > they're bread. If they were made for the sole purpose of chip manufacture > -- pas haba bekisnin. The case itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. I will rephrase my argument. Pas Habaa b'kisnin has three distinctive definitions. And the halacha is clear that these are inclusive of each other. For example, if someone has a babka and a honey cake and a pretzel in front of him, he can say Mezonos on any of them, and then eat them all. At no point need he worry that if this is Mezonos, then another must be Hamotzi. The halacha accepts that if ANY of these unusual changes are done to the recipe, then it will be a snack food by definition. RMB's comment about bagel chip refers to a discussion we had way back in the Digest 1:38, over 18 years ago, when R' Levi Reisman wrote: > Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler > (editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, ... > > Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water. First, bread > is baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted. What is the > beracha? Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and > his answer was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the > bread was being made. If the bread was baked with the intention that it > be made into melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process > ended with something thin and crispy, not normally used as bread. > However, if the bread was baked with the intention of using it as bread, > and only afterwards converted for use as melba toast, then the beracha > was hamotzi, since it was being baked to be used as bread. > > Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is > made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel > chips, the beracha would be mezonos. However, if the bread was purchased > from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread, > then the beracha would be hamotzi. > > ... This discussion of bagel chips may seem to introduce a fourth type of PHBK, but it merely elaborates on the general rule: The crispiness of the product is not determined by the first time it comes out of the oven, but is still in limbo until the manufacturer considers it "done". I had asked about the "flexibility" of these definitions. My point was that in every case, the halacha is "If you have a bread-like food, but it is typically eaten as a snack, then when you do eat it as a snack, it is mezonos." But I have never seen a situation where a posek says, "If you have a snack-like loaf or cracker, but it is typically eaten as the basis of a meal, then when you do eat it as the basis of a meal, it is hamotzi." Is there any precedent for such a reversal? Is there any precedent for saying that in certain communities and/or times of year (for example, Ashkenazi Americans during Pesach) crispy matzah can re-acquire Hamotzi status, and/or be exempted from the halachos that lower it to Mezonos, such that a person who wants a piece of this matzah *between* meals as a *snack* is required to say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon? Is there anything in Hilchos Pas Habaa B'Kisnin that sets a precendent for this? I would like to offer a possible precedent: Suppose I have a bag of something that the manufacturer - and his Rav Hamachshir - labeled "Mezonos Rolls". The ingredients proudly announce that there is no water at all in these rolls; even the fruit juice was fresh and natural, and *not* reconstituted from water. Since there is more juice, eggs, oil, etc, than water in this recipe, therefore, the rolls do meet the halacha's definition of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin. But the baker was very clever, and managed to give these rolls a rather bland taste. That's not to say that they taste bad, only that no one would snack on them. And in fact, no one *does* snack on them. They are used as a substitute for bread, to make sandwiches that don't require washing or benching. As I understand it, the poskim are divided on what to do when eating such a sandwich. Some say that the sandwich constitutes Kvias Seudah and therefore it becomes Hamotzi, while others say that it does not constitute Kvias Seudah and so it remains Mezonos. But my question concerns the case where there is NO Kvias Seudah: If one does eat such a roll as a snack, what is the bracha? I have clear memories of an eitzah given by the OU or the Star-K, though I cannot find a citation right now. The author took the position that such rolls, when eaten with a meal, DO become hamotzi, yet he suggested what to do with such a roll that comes with one's airline meal: Simply eat the meal on its own, and then later on, one can eat the roll as a snack, saying Mezonos. If that memory is accurate, then it is a precedent-setting case: Despite the ubiquity of "mezonos rolls" in certain situations (i.e., on an airplane) that does NOT reverse the halacha that they are indeed PHBK. If offer this as evidence to the chevra that the same applies to crispy thin matzah: Despite the ubiquity of using crispy matzah as the mainstay of meals in certain situations (i.e., where soft matza is unavailable for whatever reason), it remains PHBK, and the bracha when snacking on it - even during Pesach - is Mezonos. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> References: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Of course you are right. Thank you for the correction > Eli --------------------------------------------------- > > "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, > "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? > > > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..=============* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 20 21:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: <6e860.204d663d.4563e181@aol.com> >> The question is whether a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik, i.e. does the grave of a tzaddik have tumah. Over the ages there have been many cases of cohanim visitng the grave of tzaddikim while others condemn the minhag. Without exhausting the subject the Avnei Nezer has a chiddush that that if the Tzaddik dies naturally the grave is me-tameh while if he was called then the grave is not me-tameh. R Usher Weiss says that its a nice drasha but not halacha. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> "If he was called then the grave is not me-tameh." What does that mean, "if he was called"? Did you mean to say "if he was killed"? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 05:08:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The danger of smelling a food and not consuming it Message-ID: <> These are based on health reasons which don't seem to be applicable today. I have been at many charedi weddings and doubt if the waiters are given to eat from each food (though one could argue about how fragrant the dishes are) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 11:59:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161121195933.GA2132@aishdas.org> Beqitzur, according to the Rama and AhS, the way most of us wash our hands is not only unnecessary, but raises questions about whether the water on your hands from the first cup may be metamei the water from the second. A question with an answer, but could be avoided anyway. Now, less qitzur. AhS OC 162:7: And if he poured on his hands or on his one hand a revi'is all at once -- he doesn't need second water at all, because the revi'is is entirely metaheir. THis is what we learned in Tosefta Yadayim (pereq 1) Memeila, since there is no tamei water there at all, he does not need to raise his hands. Similarly someone who is tovel his hands in a miqvah... That's the halakhah. But even so, it is appopriate to raise his hands in any case, because the gemara makes an aspachta from the pasuq... In se'if 8 he quotes the Rama and enters a discussion of multiple washings. The Rama's yeish omerim and MA (s"q 2) say that washing 3 times on each hand (before hamotzi) is enough to remove any need to be careful about anything. Then he discussed why each washing's water isn't metamei the next one's. Still, he concludes: According to all this, it is a tiqun chakhamim, and with a revi'is at once the hands are entirely clean, and also with three times the original [water] is entirely gone. Se'if 9 says that two wachings is lechatkhilah, and if you washed with once, you do not bother getting more water. Se'if 11 explains that the common practice of 3x for neigl vasr and 2x before hamotzi is the Mordechai. The Tur (quoting the Semag) says it's 2x, plus once to wash them off. And therefore the BY concludes that uf your hands rater out clean, ythere is no need for a third. To which the Rama adds (s' 2) similarly if you have far more than a revi'is. Wash first with a little to get the dirt off, than pour the entire revi'is at once, and there is no need for a second [pouring of water]. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 21 14:07:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> [In a private email, RZL sent me some sources in the original: the Maharal, the Chinukh #78, Chagiga 3b [highlighting Rashi], and Berakhos 19b [highlighting R Nisim Gaon]. I put them up at -micha] On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:41am EST, RZ Lampel wrote (instead of sensibly sleeping): : RMB: :> Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these :> terms as well. :> "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." : You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means : "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite : below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct peshat. I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. More sources the gemara from the Y-mi already cited about 49 ways to find something tamei and 49 ways letaheir has a parallel in TB Eiruvin 13b before getting to the famous bad qol of "eilu va'eilu". See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim hain He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over which he was maqpid. Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are true. This is an actual historical question, not even one in din. But thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to contradict. Chagiga 4b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) -- there are the talmidei chakhamim who sit in many gathings and are osqin baTorah. These are metam'ei, and these are mitaheir. These make asur, and these make mutar. These make pasul, and these make kasher. Should a man say -- how can I learn Torah from now? Talmud lomar: "Kulam nasnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". I really find it pretty compelling -- that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. I would have preferred to have this conversation in a more organizaed, shelav beshlav, fashion. But since you rushed off that groundwork I was trying to lay about the non-compelling nature of Western Classical Logic and consequently how many shitos were given at Sinai, I will reply to your other points. : MAHARAL : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is the element of wind, as is known. The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. ... : CHAZAL : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of Non-Contradiction.... Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as question. Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. : Aristotle was wise enough to recognize the truth of this logic, that is : to his credit. But it is a logic that everyone from Adam to Moshe : Rabbeynu and on has been expected to use to determine truth. Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. (Quantum Physics neither, but I don't think that's more than a curiosity for this discussion. Quantum uncertainty and its violations of De Morgan's Laws are far smaller than the bugs we ignore in our water.) That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, two-values logic doesn't work. Point 2- Halakhah doesn't conform to the Classical 3 Laws of Thought when it comes to safeiq. Point 3- Pashut peshat would lead you to believe the same is true WRT shitos in machloqes. And thus the burden of proof is on those who want to show a rishon does not believe on such plurality. Then in the followup email (part II) I intended to show that the burden is not met. : RASHI ... : When Rashi (Kesubos 57a) explains eilu v'eilu by saying /sometimes/ this : consideration is appropriate and /sometimes/ that one is, because the : considerations change over according to /slight changes in : circumstances/... Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which yesod becomes iqar.) : he is working with the logic that "2 or more : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the : same time not (A and not-A)." And that is why he says that if there two : Amoraim are arguing over what their mentor held, one of them is saying : "sheker,"and we /cannot/ apply "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" to : such a situation. But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a quote, neither is sheqer. Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of arguments. You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras at face value, do so. But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes it. And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express your inability to accept the alternative. : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent that is : subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater bechokhmah uveminyan. Or... Saying there can be multiple right answers doesn't mean all answers are right. (That way lies Conservative Judaism...) Which ties in to what I said above about tiyuvta. : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on this too. :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may arise. ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach for. Except that you're working with a Hashem gave both conclusions to Moshe. : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do you really think the RBSO lied to them? And if the point is to find the emes, why would there be a rule that halakhah lemaaseh is sety by acharei rabim, against what the RBSO reveals? This is takeh a question on the Chinukh. If acharei rabbim is just to maximize the chance of being correct, hayitachein a neis wouldn't outrank rov? The Chinukh would have to say HQBH lied lekhavod R Eliezer, misled them by giving a general kelal that in this case didn't hold. Which could well be valid grounds for meshaneh es ha'emes. But that's a pretty big structure for me to make up there. ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority opinion'... : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. To wit (and this : is again something I already cited last time but repeat again. How do you get that? The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) : In Drash 5 and 11 the Ran poses a quandary: ... :> The Torah took means to prevent a misfortune that can always arise, and ? :> that is the divergence of opinions and the creation of machlokess, ? :> almost creating a situation of two Torahs. The Torah's remedy for this ? :> ever-present danger was to hand over to each generation's Sages the ? :> right to resolve halachic questions. /For in the majority of cases this ? :> will result in both a remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the ? :> correct decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and ? :> practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the Torah ?did :> not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is worth taking for ? :> the benefit accrued.? >From just before that, in derashah 5: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". Which is the Y-mi. In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more important? The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every controversy in detail". ... : Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava Kamma) : "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape the lips of : Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos shnei hafachim : b-nosei echad")... Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not arise sensible seconds and thirds. (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 10:40:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161122184003.GA30200@aishdas.org> The AhS YD 214:21-23 is relevent. Unfortunately, it's from his coverage of Nedarim, which means that only the newer editions of AhS have it. He cites the Shakh s"q 7 (d"h "vechayavim la'asos ketaqanasam"). The Shakh distinguishes between a minhag garua and a minhag chshuv. The latter defined as "shenahagu kein al pi talmid chakham". There is an obligation for a visitor to follow a minhag garua when bifneihem or when the only witness is a TC who will understand. (The Shakh phrases it in terms of when there is no chiyuv.) So it seems a minhag does NOT require a TC. But it is indeed weaker than one that was launched by a TC. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 22 11:24:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: <20161122192430.GB30200@aishdas.org> This isn't really about Brisk in general, just the applicability of chaqiros based on gavra vs cheftza. The origin of gavra vs chetza is in shavua vs neder, so unsuprisingly this is something I came across in AhS YD 215:29. The discussion is about ein issur chal al issur being a reason why a shevua to avoid something that is assur already wouldn't be chal. (Including a 2nd shavua that only includes thing(s) covered by an earlier one.) The Ran (Nedarim 18a d"h "hilkhakh naqtinan") holds that a shevu'ah is not challah on a shevu'ah nor a neder on another neder. Nor a shevu'ah on an issur. A shevu'ah is not chal on a neder, because violating a neder is just another issur. But a neder is chal on a shavu'ah or something assur. He explains: vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his shitah or any machloqes he is in? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 02:26:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:26:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? Message-ID: <1479896716559.88809@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and "Chemistry," and R. Yitzhak Barda Marc B. Shapiro 1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an "updating" of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states: See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 05:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1479907393056.49417@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. Is it permissible to eat or drink before hearing Kiddush on Shabbos morning? There are two restrictions that apply to eating in the morning: 1. Generally, one may not drink or eat before davening. This is true during the week and Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are some exceptions; it is permissible to drink water (Orach Chaim 89:3) and tea and coffee. (See Pischai Teshuvos 89, footnote 213, for sources). 2. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, one may not eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. This restriction includes water as well. However, the restriction begins only after one is obligated to recite Kiddush. Before davening, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush, as it is not permissible to drink wine until one has davened (Orach Chaim 289:1). Therefore, before Shacharis, one can drink water, (ibid.) tea, or coffee (Mishna Berura 89:22). Once one davens Shacharis (even if they have not yet read the Torah or davened Musaf), one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not eat or drink (even water) before hearing Kiddush. The Elya Rabba (286:9) writes that if one is feeling weak and has no wine for Kiddush, he may eat or drink after Shacharis. Though we normally follow the viewpoint that the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shacharis, in cases of necessity we rely on those who say it commences after Musaf. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 08:56:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What's Minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161123165651.GA11629@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:47:35PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect : of Halacha. : : As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote ... I din't know exactly how RHS phrased it, but "an aspect of *halakhah*" is too narrow. Many minhagim reflect an aspect of hashkafah or mussar. Milchigs on Shavuos, for example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 23 23:08:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:08:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun Message-ID: Todays daf (BM 49) has teh story of Tanur shel Achnoy. Part of the story is that R' Eliezer's wife, R' Gamliel's sister was worried that if R' Eliezer would say tachanun that R' Gamliel would be harmed and therefore the Gemara says that she prevented him from saying tachanun (nefilas apayim) until one day she made a mistake and he said tachanun and R' Gamliel died. This raises a few questions: 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 01:41:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? In-Reply-To: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <5836a87810390_197163fe6bc3854b811456144@a2plmmsworker07.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: <1479980450150.70521@stevens.edu> ________________________________ From: Insights Into Halacha Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 3:44 AM To: Professor L. Levine Subject: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgi One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the 'Medina shel Chessed' is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 06:31:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > 1. How did she prevent him from saying tachanun? My wife cannot prevent me > from saying tachanun when I am in a shul with a minyan, she isn't there and > if she is she is in the women's section behind the mechitzah. This would > imply that R' Eliezer always davened in his house with his wife there. What > about tefilla betzibur and daviening in a shul? > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically shemoneh > esrei which is the main part of tefila? > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. 2) This story is to show the power of tachnun and hurting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 09:45:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> > 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically > shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. -- Zev Sero Hit the road, Jack zev at sero.name but please come back once more From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 10:57:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161124185726.GA23809@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the : formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Which is why we follow 28 and Tachanun with a Qaddish that asks the RBSO "tisqabel tzelos-hon uva'us-hon -- to accept the tefillos and requests". Or as the Gra put it, tefillah and tachanunim. "Becharbi uvqashti". I wrote more on these two modes of prayer at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/prayers-and-requests Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 24 11:06:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R' Eliezer's wife and tachanun In-Reply-To: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> References: <43040433-b9ed-a254-8480-6d8519f855ba@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 24, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> 2. Why is tachanun more powerful then other tefilos specifically >> shemoneh esrei which is the main part of tefila? > Nefilas Apayim is a time for free-form personal prayer, after the > formal scripted prayer of the Shemoneh Esrei. Where did Raban Gamliel fit into this story? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 05:26:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? Message-ID: <1480080306606.14596@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. May a woman eat or drink before hearing Kiddush Shabbos morning? A. As mentioned in yesterday's Halacha Yomis, there is no requirement to recite Kiddush before davening as the obligation to recite Kiddush only begins after davening when one is permitted to eat the Shabbos meal. There are two opinions among Rishonim whether a woman is required to daven Shacharis every day, or is it sufficient for her to recite a short prayer (see Mishna Berura 106:4). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchosa (52:13) writes that if a woman does not daven Shacharis, but recites a short prayer in the morning, the short prayer is equivalent to davening Shacharis vis-a-vis the requirement to recite Kiddush. Once she has said her short prayer, she is obligated to recite Kiddush, and may no longer eat or drink until she has fulfilled the requirement of Kiddush. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow her to eat in the morning before hearing Kiddush. (Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28(3)). This is because some Rishonim exempt a woman from Kiddush Shabbos during the day. Though we do not normally follow this view, we can rely on it in situations of necessity. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l is of the opinion that a married woman is not obligated to recite Kiddush before her husband has davened. (Igros Moshe, volume 4, 101:2). Accordingly, if a woman has completed her morning prayers before her husband has davened, she may eat a full meal. Shemira Shabbos Kehilchosa (52:46) notes, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l disagreed with Rav Moshe, zt"l on this latter point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:08:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125160801.GC13321@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it : squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing : a tea bag. That was what I came in aguing: Step 1, pushing the plunger down, wouldn't be boreir when making tea because any french press designed for coffee which requires much more volume of grounds than we would need for tea leaves) would not have a plunger that goes so far as to squish the water out of the tea leaves. I took this so for granted, I only thought of the filtering in step 2, when you pour the water out, when considering the chance of boreir. But them we're separating okhel mitokh pesoles, a topic I will return to below, in response to RMP's contribution. But I do see RAM's tzad about step 1 as well. Here there is no teabag about which to argue the teabag is big and its presence in water is not a taaroves. Moving the plunger pushes tea tea out of an ever-growing percentage of the liquid -- a different thing entirely. More like moving all your peas to one side of your peas-and-carrots, so that you could eat your carrots plain. Which is indeed boreir from the side you are eating from, no? On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:30:39PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. Just : to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the : French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still : obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 07:31:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Beracha on Matzo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161125153102.GA13321@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:17:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The case of Sepharadim making hamotzi on Matzah only during Pesach : itself is not the evidence I'm looking for, because I haven't seen : anything in print to support the practice. Your report of what people *do* : might be accurate, but I want to know if they are correct. Yehave Da'at 1:91, 3:12 Yaskil Avdei 6:18, 8:5, 8:52 ROY cites Besamim Rosh and the Chida Besamim Rosh's attribution to the Rosh is likely false. Most academics agree that the first publisher, and commentary writer -- R' Shauil Lieberman (18th cent Brerlin) -- was the real author. R' Ze'eav Wolf posted an argument against it the same your as besamim Rosh was published. Still, ROY gives it significant credance. (More on Besamim Rosh at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2005/10/besamim-rosh.html ) And none of that touches his citation of the Chida. Or on ROY's own reasoning. He is uncomfortable with making a mezonos on matzah during the year, leaving it as a maqor to rely on for those who follow this minhag, but better to eat matzah during the year only in a meal that also has bread. BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft matzah is hamotzi year-round. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 08:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Minhag Shtus In-Reply-To: References: <20161117175504.GD19258@aishdas.org> <60e97d168577134ad51cb16b30126588@aishdas.org> <6bb93488e64a8222cd8c4673a4cec851@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161125160127.GB13321@aishdas.org> I wrote: :> Atifah is a chiyuv? I thought it was minhag to make a point of wearing :> a four cornered garment during tefillah. In private email, I sent RMP some meq1oros. The Rama in 17:2, in ddiscussing tzitzis for nashim and avadim, explains that tzitzis "is not a chovas gavra. (Agur siman 27) Meaning, he is not chayav to buy tzitzis for him in order to obligate him in tzitzis. Later in siman 19, it says, 'when he has a talis of 4 corners {and wears it)." The MB (s"q 5) contrasts this to women making a berakhah on lulav, which is a chovas gavra. "Because there there is no chovas gavra, because a man has no obilgation deOraisa to buy a talis of 4 corners. Rather, if he is mis'ateif, he must mdo it with tzitzis..." RMP replied: : *Ituf* is how you properly wear a four-cornered garment -- i.e. it's a : prerequisite when fulfilling *mitzvas tzitzis*. Me: :> One might argue that a minhag to be yosheiv uboteil from some mitzvah :> makhsheres or qiyumis (an asei that's not an imperitive) is a minhag :> shtus, but I didn't take that for granted. Clearly the MB felt that :> without the "derashah", it would be very strange. : From Tur OC 17 (especially BaCH ad loc.) and from SA OC 17:3, which are : based on the sources I mentioned as well as on TY, a parent (or anyone : obligated by the *mitzvas _chiyuvis_ d'chinuch*) who can afford to buy : himself a *talis* must also buy a *talis* for his son (or ward) so long as : that young man understands how (i.e. has the *da'as*) to be *misateif* (TB) : and/or how to keep two *tzitzis* in front of his body and two behind (TY). However, for all this derivation, when it comes to the din itself, there is no chiyuv of ituf or even to buy a tallis. The Rama in 17:3 says "tzarikh", not "chayav", to buy him tzitzis. Not sure that matters, but in light of what he says in the previous se'if, it could well be. The MB s"q 9 explains the Rama as saying he needs "to buy him a beged w/ 4 corners and hang tzitzis on them in order to teach him mitzvos". S"q 10 is where he justifies East European minhag. And there is where I got that impression that if it weren't for the "derashah" of "gedilim ta'aseh lekha" being next to "ki yiqach ish ishah" it would be tamuha to be mevatel from mitzvas tzitzis. So, if the Rama says there is no chiyuv of atifah, but a chiyuv that any atifah should be done with tzitzis, how do we understand the meqoros? The gemara (Sukkah 42a) says that the chiyuv of tzitzis starts when the qatan can understand atifah. By implication, a qatan who doesn't know how to do atidah is allowed to wear a four cornered garment without tzitzis, and when he does, either don't wear the beged, or put tzitzis on it. Look at the previous case -- the chiyuv of lulav begins when the child knows how to do na'anu'im. Na'anu'im aren't me'aqvim; they are ony hiddur mitzah. The din is to hold the 4 minim. Still, that's the definition of bar da'as. Here too, atifah is given as the shiur for a bar da'as WRT tzitzis, not WRT atifah. Look at the Yad (pereq 1) -- the mitzvah is a makhshir for 4 cornered garments. The Rambam never phrases a chiyuv to wear the four-cornered garment, never mind be mes'ateif in it. Also, WRT lulav, "al netilas lulav" not "al leqikhas lulav", even though you don't have to raise the 4 minim to be yotzei. You can't deduce things from a berakhah. I think na'anu'im are a good parallel. The chuyuv is to hold the four minim. We do na'anu'im as to do more than the chiyuv. A child doesn't understand the mitzvah until he understands na'anu'im. But they aren't a chiyuv. Similarly talmud Torah, another case in the gemara. The cutoff maturity is old enough to speak. But one can fulfill _vehagisa bo yomam valaylah_ without speaking. (I skipped tefillin, because being able to guard one's tefillin is a practical necessity. Which complicates analyzing its role as a maturity test.) It is possible that the minhag started in error. But I do not see it calling for a violation of the din. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 25 09:13:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:13:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language Message-ID: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> > > 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. > I agree that when you are writing in English, you should write in English. You should avoid Hebrew words when there is no need to use Hebrew words. It is a simple matter to write "Leviticus" instead of "Vayyiqra". It denotes the same thing. But when an English word does not denote the same thing as the Hebrew word which conveys the idea that you are trying to express, you must find a different English word, or, in the case of terms of art for which no precise English equivalent exists, you must use the Hebrew word. "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" (a term which was used, parenthetically, to describe a punishment that existed in the legal code of the Republic of South Africa until less than a generation ago, and, in the United States, is occasionally imposed in Mennonite and Amish communities). And if you need to make precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 15:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > The Ran ... explains: > vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA"ASEI SHEBATORAH > > If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a > Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his > shitah or any machloqes he is in? Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? What's to stop a Brisker from invoking the gavra-cheftza chiluq, and then responding to your objection with "Well, this is an exception to the general rule given by that Ran." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 06:15:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are Love and marriage, love and marriage They go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you, brother You can't have one without the other I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary on Bereishis 24;67 which is below. 67 Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she became his wife, and he loved her, and only then was Yitzchak comforted for his mother. This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf - in the non-Jewish world - between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says: va'yekach es Rivkah va't'hi lo l'eshah va'yeehhaveha! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning of true love. And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty and glory: va'yenacham Yitzchok achrei emo. A forty-year old man, inconsolable over the death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah's death, the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then found his mother again in his wife (hence, "When he brought Rivkah into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there" - see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been paid to the dignity and nobility of woman - and it is in the ancient history of Judaism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 26 16:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Precision Of Language In-Reply-To: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> References: <1480094030.CEAF5b320.6542@m5.shachter> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, jay wrote: >> 1) He was excommunicated and therefore could not daven with a minyan. ... > "Excommunication" is not a correct translation of either "xerem" or > "nidduy". We are not Christians. We do not have a sacrament of > Communion, from which we can be excluded, and which we believe will > protect us from eternal damnation, or Purgatory, when we die. A > correct English translation of both "xerem" and "nidduy" is "ban" ... > And if you need to make > precise distinctions between "xerem" and "nidduy" that cannot be made > in the English language, then you must use the Hebrew words. Thank you for the lesson on excommunication, it is interesting. I do not think that the majority of A/A reader would read the word ban and think "xerem" or "nidduy". Sometimes common usage wins out. Bringing in the Mennonites, maybe the word shunned would be closer. Shavua Tov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:15:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part the lyrics are >> Love and marriage, love and marriage >> They go together like a horse and carriage ... > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:38:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68b24133-362a-6429-12c8-b75e023c9932@gmail.com> > Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > > From the article at > > http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q > > > [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough ? heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ... > > MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2] But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 34:21-28). [3] The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too). [1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot?s note in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of "Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef expressing heretical ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei d'Iyov." [2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life. [3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ????.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 220610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 11:47:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> <32EB915F-A455-41D3-9C9A-51B3DBBDBCBA@inter.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:15 PM, via Avodah wrote: > > Frank Sinatra used to sing a song about love and marriage. In part > the lyrics are > >> Love and marriage, love and marriage > >> They go together like a horse and carriage > ... > > I am sure that RSRH would insist that the order is wrong and it should > > be marriage and love. My reasoning is based upon Rav Hirsch's commentary > > on Bereishis 24:67 which is below. > > Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? > Why not both? We have been here before, and I believe it was RnTK who pointed out that the Avot (who are of course a siman labanim) display different models of courtship and marriage to teach us that each is equally legitimate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 12:11:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <1480256110019.23585@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <4B.A8.07859.11E3B385@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:15 PM 11/27/2016, ????? ??? wrote: >Could one say the opposite, based on Bereshit 29,18? Rav Hirsch does not comment on this pasuk. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 14:48:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Michael Poppers wrote: : In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press. : Just to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he : forbade the French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though : one is still obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*. And R' Micha Berger asked: > Isn't that mutar for akhilah le'alter? Or am I confused? It is very easy to forget that the melacha here is not Borer. Because the selection is being done by means of a keli, the melacha is M'raked. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", pp 509-511) writes that L'alter helps for Tochain and Borer because it establishes the act as Derech Achilah. But M'raked requires the use of a specialized instrument, so it is merely a preliminary preparation *before* the eating, i.e., *not* Derech Achilah. (It is my opinion that the french press is a great example of this.) He writes that L'alter helps for M'raked only in exceptional cases, such as placing a cloth over the cup that one is actually drinking from. See the lengthy footnote #8 there for his sources. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 16:42:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (jay via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:42:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] The Benediction Over Soft Matza In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Nov 27, 2016 11:43:58 am Message-ID: <1480293748.71A8a0.14784@m5.shachter> > > BUT, the Chida does answer one question I had along the > way... Sepharadim only have this problem with crispy matzah. Soft > matzah is hamotzi year-round. > You could have seen this question answered last year in Israel, where the last day of Passover was immediately followed by Shabbath, without any intervening time in which to buy or bake bread (it is interesting to think about what Sefardim would do, if they paskened that soft matza is like crispy matza; the only two alternatives I can think of are to arrange for a non-Jew to give you kosher bread on Shabbath, and to perform qvi`ath s`udah with matza, according to whatever criteria you have for qvi`ath s`udah). Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 27 18:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisk and the Ran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161128024111.GA1537@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:39:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> The Ran ... explains: :> vehai lav issur gavra hu KEKHOL LO SA'ASEI SHEBATORAH :> If the Ran holds that every issur is an issur gavra, can a :> Brisker honestly use the gavra-cheftza chiluq to describe his :> shitah or any machloqes he is in? : Are you sure that the Ran really means every single last one, without any : exceptions at all? Maybe he is just stating a general rule? Are you suggesting that when the Ran says that a neder is chal al issur but a shavu'ah is not, he only means in general? That there are some issurim that are really on a cheftzah, and therefore the neder would not be chal and the shavu'ah would not? (And similarly nedarim and shavu'os to fulfill a chiyuv.) The Ran only invokes this notion that every lav is an issur gavra to explain why nedarim and shavu'os differ in this way. It would seem to me to be a bit much to say he doesn't mean they always differ without the Ran himself writing as much. But YMMV. And you would still be tying one Brisker arm behind his back. As he couldn't say that a given issur was in the cheftzah, pe'ulah or chalos according to the Ran without a hurdle of proof to show this is an exceptional case. And the rarity would have to be preserved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 09:02:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Love and Marriage Message-ID: <79f99c.10c9035b.456dbd10@aol.com> From: Professor L. Levine, quoting R' Hirsch: >> This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah. The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they come to know each other better. Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call "love." But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life, and we immediately see the vast gulf -- in the non-Jewish world -- between the "love" of the partners before marriage and what happens afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This sort of "love" is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment. << >>>>> When I was a single girl (and getting a little long in the tooth, having dated dozens of Mr. Wrongs), the Novominsker Rebbetzen a'h once said to me, "The goyim put a hot pot on a cold stove. We put a cold pot on a hot stove." At the time I didn't fully appreciate her words because I thought she was telling me to go eeny, meeny, miny, mo and just pick somebody already, any random guy. But now I perceive the wisdom in her words, and I often quote her. (I add the caveat that you shouldn't go into a marriage without some level of mutual attraction.) Her words wisely echo R' Hirsch's insight into the nature of Jewish marriage. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 13:06:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? Message-ID: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Here's a question I meant to ask a couple of weeks ago, from Parshas Lech Lecha: In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he didn't object. ("Let's see, if Avraham was 86 when Yishmael was born, and 99 when he had a bris, then Yishmael was 13...."). But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! What then is Rashi's point? Probably there are Rashi super-commentaries that address this question but I'll just wait for my friends here on Avodah to provide an answer. Thank you. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 00:44:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yisrael Herczeg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] To praise Yishmael? In-Reply-To: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> References: <7da1fb.2bd44d8e.456df63d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Toby Katz wrote: > In pasuk 16:16 we are told that Avraham was 86 years old when Yishmael was > born, and Rashi comments there that this is written in order to praise > Yishmael, since it proves that Yishmael was 13 when he had a bris and he > didn't object... > > But in 17:25 the pasuk states explicitly that Yishmael was 13 years old > when he had a bris. So we didn't need to do any arithmetic! I like the Maskil LeDavid's answer to this question. If we had only the explicit possuk, we'd know that Yishmael was thirteen when he had his bris but not that he didn't object. The Torah underlines this point through repetition, implying that it has significance -- although he was thirteen he didn't object. (According to one pshat in Rashi to 22:1, it was this particular point that ultimately led to the Akeidah.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 28 21:24:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> [RHM's sources are available at -micha] RMB: > The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions, > even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros -- > "kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu > va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rabbi Berger, before I begin, I want to apologize in advance for any harsh or condescending language I might be using in the fire of discussion. I truly admire your broad learning and maasim in promoting Torah and mussar learning and practice, and your personal acts of mussar and chesed. Now, for our disagreement. RMB: > Pashut peshat in Chazal is that machloqes is understood in these terms > as well. RZL: > "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim, vehalakhah keBH." > You take it as " pashut peshat"that "divrei E-lokim chaim"means > "true [despite being contradictory]," but the rishonim I will cite > below hold that what you consider "pashut peshat" is not correct > peshat. RMB: > I am not sure what you mean by this last sentence -- that pashut > peshat is NOT as I take it, so there is no indication that both > shitos are truely what Hashem Said? Or that this is pashut peshat, > but you will bring rishonim to meet the burden of proof that correct > peshat isn't what the words would seem to mean to the naive reader. Eilu v'Eiu! I purposely left it vague, "pashut peshat" is used in various ways. One is a reference to the literal meaning of a statement. Another, to the surface meaning. Another, to an understanding based on a more careful analysis of the words. And then another would demand that the analysis requires being informed of external factors. Another definition is "what the words would seem [to indicate] to the naive reader," which you now revealed is what you meant, although there could also be disagreement over what the naive reader would be expected to think.So yes, the naive but uninformed (of shittos rishonim) reader may very well take the memra to mean both sides of a machlokess are true, despite being contradictory. But that is not the peshat endorsed by the rishonim. I will deal again with the "kulam nitnu" Gemora later. But a careful reading of the other talmudic sources' wording reveals that they do not state that Hashem told Moshe that anything is, in final state, both assur and muttar, etc. They state only that Hashem revealed to Moshe the panim, the many, many factors and considerations and rules of drash that must be weighed and applied to determine the halachic status of something. (Yes, Hashem was teaching Moshe about halacha l'maaseh, for Moshe to hand over to the bnei Yisroel as a "Shulchan Aruch," [Rashi, beginning of parshas Mishpatim] so that they would know how to conduct themselves. And if there is a disagreement among sages, it's about what that correct halacha was. And even if they are both conforming to some metaphysical self-contradiction in shamayyim, they are arguing not about that, but about what the halacha l'maaseh here on earth is. /Regarding that/, only the one corresponding to what Moshe explicitly or implicitly taught is correct.) You made the claim that the majority of rishonim chose to disregard the Law of Non-Contradiction. And you based this upon your claim that they did not reinterpret [from what you consider "pashut peshat"] the gemaros that say "kulam nitnu miroe'eh echad," "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei," "eilu give HQBH, " etc., but left them,or actually explained them as the naive reader would take them, as disregarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, If I understand you correctly, you want to take these sayings as a naive reader would, and that would be that Hashem told Moshe, "Everything is both tahor and tamei, muttar and assur, chayiv and patur, etc. (whether in a metaphysical or physical sense), but as far as halacha l'maa'seh is concerned, I want the future sages to pick one way or the other (based upon no precedent or standard) by which people should conduct themselves." (Or /was/ there halachic precedence that was set, by Moshe's and/or Yehoshua's sages, in which case the machlokos of the Tannaim and Amoraim were over reconstructing what those down-to-earth halachic conclusions were, divorcing the shittos in those machlokos from being "divrei Elokim Chaim"?) But I listed (in addition to Rambam) ten rishonim who /do/ explain these statements differently. Whatever they say, goes in a totally different direction from simply saying, or working with the notion, that "Hashem gave Moshe contradicting pesakim from which the sages should pick for halacha." What they say gives no indication of disagreement with what the Rambam and Geonim emphasized: that there is a true halacha, explicit or implicit, going back to Moshe miSinai, which if forgotten or not dealt with before could and should be reconstructed through the methodologies given at Sinai, ala Othniel ben Kenaz, and that the halachic status the sages assign to objects and actions is identical with the one true overall status of that object or action. For instance, Rashi, followed by Ritva, explains that "eilu v'eiu" cannot apply when the opposing parties are disagreeing over what a previous teacher said, because one of them is saying sheker. If Rashi and Ritva are taking eilu v'eilu to mean that regardless of the halachic status of say, muttar, assigned by the previous mentor, in Shammayim it is both muttar and assur, so the talmid who is misquoting the mentor as saying "assur" is also "right"--then why would eilu v'eilu not be applicable? And to repeat, by assigning each of the diverse halachos to different circumstances, Rashi is working in consort with the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is as you say, let him simply say as you do, that although the two pesakim are contradictory, both are talking about the same thing in the same time and place, because bashamyim there is no Law of Non-Contradiction. No, he is taking eilu v'eilu to mean something else, and something which assumes the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your response that > Both are true, and sometimes a slight change in circumstance would > change which we should follow lemaaseh. (In Maharal-speak, which > yesod becomes iqar.) does not explain why Rashi would require a slight change in circumstance to allow your take of eilu v'eilu to stand. And as for your comment that according to Rashi, > But when the machloqes is over sevara rather than the contents of a > quote, neither is sheqer. That hardly defends your claim that Rashi /advocates/ that eilu v'eilu refers to a notion of self-contradictions each being true. As to what it /does/ mean according to Rashi, we can cull from Ritva, who follows through on Rashi's explanation. RITVA, following Rashi, explains Kesubos 57b as saying that it is preferable to say that two Amoraim are having their own argument about their own opinions, than to say that Amoraim are arguing over one Amora's opinion. This former way, neither one of them would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but "these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he learned, something one should refrain as much as possible from saying. Do you not see that his application of eilu v'eilu has nothing to do with contradicting ideas being both true in shamayim? You count this as an example of one of rov rishonim advocating your "pashut peshat" in eilu v'eilu? Even if you insist that what he says /tolerates/ your "pashut peshat," this is not grounds to say the Ritva advocates it! But back to what Rashi and Ritva say it does mean, there is a problem. The alternative, preferred explanation, that the Amoraim are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, is also saying that they are arguing about the contents of quotes! The Ritva answers this: And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy are arguing over what Tannaim were arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, each of these Amoraim is saying /what seems to him to be correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over/. And this is what he holds fits the concept of "eilu v'eilu. In other words, his explanation of eilu v'eilu is that each disputant is making an attempt at analyzing information honestly and sincerely, where there is no necessity to conclude that he is misrepresenting or forgetting the data at his disposal. Again, you cite the source I cited, Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". and tell us you find it pretty compelling that simple peshat in Chazal is that H' literally gave us both shitos. But your claim was that the rov rishonim hold this, whereas--as I already wrote, but you skipped over in your response--Rashi takes this passage in a totally different direction! Namely: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu." Do you see Rashi saying anything about Hashem literally giving both shittos? All it means, he goes on to explain, is: "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts to understand the matter]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly." Identical to the Ritva above. But yet you feel compelled to define the rishonim's shitta by what you feel to be the simple peshat in Chazal, which is that H' literally gave us both shitos. Your methodology seems to be that 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that contradicts the logical approach assumed throughout the rest of Shas and rishonim, defending it by creating a concept of a dichotomy between truth and aim of halacha (which you think is maintained by Maharal, an acharon or very late rishon). 2. You see the rishonim explaining the Gemora in down-to-earth terms, not at all hinting to the esoteric take 3. But instead of accepting the "reinterpretation," the pashut peshat of the rishon, you insist on yours and attempt to show that it is still compatible with what the rishon says. 4. You then claim that the rishon holds your position because, after all, that's the naive reading of the Gemora 5. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon one who denies that this is the rishon's opinion. I insist this methodology is flawed. And in terms of a pashtus understanding of Gemoros and rishonim establishing a basic outlook towards mesorah, I think if you would ask almost anyone what their naive impression is, it would be that the sages are striving to correctly interpret what their predecessors held, going back in a chain mesorah, with the assumption that there is a single correct halacha for each circumstance that was intended by Hashem, that they are striving to identify. Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? > ... See also Gitin 6b: Eliyahu tells R Aviatar that HQBH discussed > both sides of his debate with R Yehudah about pilegesh begiv'ah. RA > himself said the levi was getting rid of her because he found a > zevuv. R Yonasan said he found a hair. Amar Lei: Chas veshalom! Umi > ika sefeiqa qamei Shemaya? Amar Lei: Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim > Chaim hain > He found a fly but wasn't maqpid about it, and he found a hair, over > which he was maqpid. Note that the dispute was over what triggered the levi's anger. Regarding the fly in the plate, the conclusion was that the levi was /not/ maqpid, and it was /not/ the reason he sent the pilegesh away. The reason he sent her away is that he found hair (in his plate, or on her in a place that would cause him damage during relations [Rashi]). So regarding the point in dispute, R. Aviatar was wrong. > Notice that eilu va'eilu is being used to mean both sides are > true.... thanks to there being many ways to look at someone's > motives, both sides could be true even while appearing to > contradict. Not really. Not according to Tosefos HaRosh,who logically remarks that Eliyahu was really supporting R. Yonasan's position. RA thought the cause of anger was the fly and only the fly, thus his shock at what Eliyahu told him. And he was wrong about that. The levi was /not/ maqpid about the fly. R. Yonasan was right. The thing that finally angered the levi was the hair. The most one can say in RA's defense is that the matter of the hair made the levi anger, and then he remembered the incident with the fly, and the two things together enraged him to the point of sending the pilegesh out. But then, that's not what R. Yonasan thought, either. If there was a third person arguing that after the fly incident, the levi considered the hair affair the last straw, he would be the one and only one who was right about what he meant to say. To quote from Dynamics of Dispute (p.221 ff.): Obviously, there are some internal difficulties with this passage. ?Why is Rebbi Avyasar the one being praised when his opponent is ?the one who was right? Even if we say that the fly contributed to the ?anger, though it was not what triggered it, as Avyasar thought, Rebbi ?Yonoson was still much more correct. The Tosefos HaRosh (Gittin ??6b) addresses this problem and answers that people were not aware ?at all of the contribution the fly made to the man's anger. They only ?knew about the fact that upon , seeing the hair, he became enraged ?at his concubine. Therefore Rebbi Avyasar's remark was a ?remarkable insight, explainable only as divine inspiration. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Rebbi Avyasar himself ?considered his report to be irreconcilable with his opponent's. "Heaven forbid," he exclaimed, when he first heard Elijah say that ?Hashem accepted both of their reports, for as he saw it, either one ?report was right, or the other. The issue that Rebbi Avyasar and ?Rebbi Yonoson were addressing--had you asked them what they ?were arguing about-was identifying the factor that triggered the ?rnan's anger. And the plain, direct answer to that simple question ?was, according to Elijah, the hair, and not the fly. Why then did Elijah ?say, "These and those are the words of the Living G-d?" ?Building on the Tosefos HaRosh's explanation that--despite the ?opinions of the two Sages--both a fly and a hair were involved in the ?event, we can conclude that one's report of the facts was really a ??"recessive gene" cause of the anger. True, Avyasar was not correct ? according to the way he understood himself, but there was a fly ?involved, and it did contribute strongly to the final anguish, though ?it was not its principal cause. This is what Elijah meant when he ?invoked the phrase "These and those." The point of "These and ?those" is that Avyasar's error was not baseless. He was merely ?reporting a contributing cause to an emotional outburst--its "recessive gene" cause--which he mistook for the outburst's immediate ?cause. ? Tosefos(Rosh HaShonna 27a, cf. Ohr HaChaim on Braishis 1:1 siman 16) uses this concept to reconcile two mutually exclusive ?versions of an event. He says that whereas one version was ?reporting a tradition describing the actual event, the other was ?reporting a tradition of a strongly considered action: ? ?[The Gemora states] Whose opinion are we following in our Rosh HaShonna prayers that say the world was created on Rosh ? HaShonna? --Rebbi Eliezer's, for he holds that the world was ? created in Tishri (the month in which Rosh Hashonna falls [supra 8a, lob, Avoda Zorra 8a]). ? Rabbi Elazar HaKalir composed the Shemini Atserres prayer for ?rain, which states that the world was created in Tishri, as was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Yet he also composed the Passover ?prayer for dew, which states the world was created in Nissan ?(the month in which Passover occurs), as was the opinion of ?Rebbi Yehoshua! How [could he contradict himself so]? ? Rabbeynu Tam answers, " 'These and those are the words of the ?Living G-d.' We can say that in Tishri G-d was /thinking/ of creating the World, whereas he did not [actually ?create it until Nissan." ? We see that "These and those" describes the method of reconcil?ing two opinions by admitting that only one of them is a description ? of the subject's action (G-d's creating the world) and taking the ? other as a description of his prior, considered thought. Although ? Rebbi Eliezer certainly meant that the world was actually created ? during Tishri (or else his exchange with Rebbi Yehoshua could not ? be termed a machlokess), it is desirable, especially when it comes to ? historical occurrences, to minimize the gap between opponents, ?even ? if it means interpreting someone's statement differently from the ? way he himself intended. To this solution, Tosefos attaches the label ? ?"These and those." ? > > : MAHARAL > > : You invoke the Maharal, but the Maharal (be'er HaGolah, be'er > rishon) : explains that halacha is like Hashem's creations... > > ... And Hashem yisbarakh created everything, and He created the > matter so that is has in it 2 bechinos. Only when it comes to > halakhah lemaaseh that there is no doubt that one is more iqar than > the second, like the Acts of H'. Even when something is a compound, > in any case this is not like the other -- one is more central. For > wood, which is a compound of four elements, the overpowering iqar is > the element of wind, as is known. > > The first two sentences (before the highlight in your scan) make the > point that I was trying to lay down in that first, groundwork email > -- Hashem gave us both shitos. Is this not a reinforcement of the > literal read of evilu va'eilu? Hashem made 2 bechinos, and only when > it comes to lemaaseh we have to choose one. There is no such statement there that Hashem /gave/ us both shittos or /gave/ us anything. It's talking about the nature of things. Those two sentences (which I put in bold) say:? The two things [not 'the two halachos'--as is seen when the Maharal goes on to explain himself] are from ?Hashem Yisborach, but nevertheless /one is closer to ?Hashem Yisborach than the other/, just as in created ?things..." and then what I highlighted, where Maharal explains himself: And ?likewise with the taamim, although both of them [both of the taamim, not the words or pesakim of the sages] are ?from Hashem Yisborach, nevertheless one is closer to ?Hashem than the other. But by Beis Shammai and Beis ?Hillel, both of them were divrei Elokim Chaim ?equally...Both of them were near the truth of Hashem ?Yisborach... Therefore it says "Elokim Chayim," ?because "life" is the true-ness of what exists. When one says "'this lives" he means it is ?what exists and it has no non-existence.? Maharal is not translating "divrei" as "words of," to be referring to the words, e.,g. pesakim, of BS and BH. He's translating "divrei" as "things/elements/factors." These elements/factors that contribute to the mutar or tahor nature of the thing, and these elements/factors that contribute to assur or tamei nature of the thing, are all "of Hashem", i.e. "from Hashem," meaning created by Hashem, and do exist in some degrees in the object or action being disputed about. In the case of the matters between BS and BH, they exist in equal degrees. In all other machlokos, the factors that weigh more determine the nature of the object or action, and that nature defines the correct halacha. Thus his example of a tree. I would posit another example. You and I have both male and female components, and both of them are "from Hashem." But the male components outweigh the female ones. If one would say that we are females, it's true that he's not entirely off base, since we do have female components in us. Eilu v'eilu, all the factors were created and are "from Hashem" and do exist to some degree. But in the totality of reality, both halachic and natural, he is wrong. Thus (with the exception of the disputes of BS and BH) only one is the halacha because that one is what is factually "closer to Hashem." The disputants are arguing over which components outweigh the others, and that is a matter of fact about which they cannot both be correct. But again, your assertion was about rishonim, not Maharal. It is not true that "rov rishonim" (if any at all) say that Hashem told Moshe to tell bnei Yisroel that each thing is both assur and muttar, tamie and tahor, chayyiv and pattur, etc. > > ... : CHAZAL > > : You haven't addressed my point that every Gemora's kushya, or at > least : every tiyuvta-tiyuvta, is assuming the Law of > Non-Contradiction.... > > Because halakhah requires a single pesaq. I think you are assuming > that "tiyuvta" must mean that we cannot find the one shitah given at > Sinai and then presenting my not sharing that assumption as > question. > > Tiyuvta could mean we cannot figure out which shitah is more > consistent with other pesaqim already made. It could mean any of a > lot of different ways we reach a stalemate. I think your confusing "tiyuvta" with "teyku." Tiyuvta is a checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one maintained by the opposition. My point was that Chazal assume the Law of Non-Contradiction, something that you denied, but which you see working here. > > :... Chazal : taught the Sinaitic rule that if two pesukim are in > contradiction, a : third one comes to qualify them, to add conditions > to one or both of : them so that they no longer contradict. > > But this is a rule of derashah. Meaning, you can decide which shitah > to make halakhah using the kasuv hashelishi. So was the kasuv hashlishi put there to point to a specific halacha over another, or not? > > I pointed out cases where Aristo's logic doesn't work. > > That was a central point of that email. In a real world, where > categories have fuzzy edges, and when dealing with the human > condition ride with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence, > two-values logic doesn't work. I didn't want to get into that. I'm focused on your claim about rov rishonim. And I wanted to cut it down before you start building on it. > Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #17: > Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its > opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of > po'el, it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true > simultaneously. In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is > impossible for a person to think about one thing without considering > the opposite, Not a rishon. (And even according to this quote, yeah, in the realm of machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite. For instance, if one thinks about Hashem's existence, he must /consider/ the existence of avodah zorrah, or of His non-existence, chas veshalom. If one thinks of the truth, he considers the false. And the relevance is...?) > > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, > it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction > .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching > about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite > conclusions, but who : concludes that "that is correct by way of > drash, but in the derech : ha-emes there is ta'am v'sod ba-davar." > And pardon me, but I cannot : accept that any one of us can decipher > what he means, either in the : beginning or the end.) > > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. > [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras > at face value, do so. Yes, I do. And I proved it. > But "I cannot accept" or our inability to decipher is insufficient > reason to take a gemara at anything but what it says. When the Ritva > is confusing, we should start by assuming that whatever he means, > it's consistent with the gemara. Especially when he himself quotes > it. --He quotes it and says not to take the Gemora literally, nor what the Rabbanei Tsarfas say literally. I said I could not accept that you or I can decipher what Ritva means in his Rabbanei Tsarfas comment on Eruvin. But his comment about the same subject in Kesubos makes it clear he views eiu v'eilu in a way that avoids contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction, and he does not take eilue v'eilu to mean that Hashem literally had Moshe Rabbenu give opposite shittos to bnei Yisroel, for them to choose between. And I'm not the first to balk at a literal take of the Ritva's Rabbanei Tzarfas thesis. The Shelah (Toldos Adam Beis Chochma III) quotes it and then writes, And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them [i.e. they are compatible and not contradictory], then their adage "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? The mind (daas), therefore, cannot be at peace (lo yanu-ach) with the words of the Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). (And I won't go into the Shela's own explanation of eilu v'eilu--he's not a rishon--but suffice it to say that he maintains his avoidance to transgressing the Law of Non-Contradiction in explaining it, and does not accept the notion that Moshe Rabbeynu literally handed down opposite pesakim.) > > And as I already noted, it makes sense to me to read this Ritva as > talking about being correct in terms of derashah (emes la'amito), > but not the way to pasqen. Which is why he quotes a gemara about > acharei rabbim being a rule to pick between two shitos each given -- > with their numerous raayos -- to MRAH. The fact that he is contrasting "l'fi haDrash" with "derech ha-emmess," makes me wonder how you can maintain that "l'fi haDrash" indicates the "emmmes l'amitto." I found three other places where he uses this term, and it seems he takes it to mean a figurative/poetical expression of an idea not to be taken literally (ala the Pesicha of Moreh Nevuchim). He contrasts drash with "aval ha-inyan," "v'ha-nachon," and with "v'nireh," indicating it's not the "real" meaning. > But in any case, I was arguing that any take on Rashi or the Ritva > that says that Hashem did not give us multiple shitos ion Sinai is > the side that needs proof. And you fail to give any; you just express > your inability to accept the alternative. No, I quoted the Rashi's and Ritva's that explicitly take the meaning of eilu v'eilu in an entirely different direction from yours. And that direction maintains the Law of Non-Contradiction.You are ignoring those plainly stated and comprehensible explanations in favor of another Ritva that is very difficult to comprehend. Even if it would mean what you advocate, you would have a shittah that is opposed by these two others (besides the Rambam and the several others I cited). And that contradicts your claim that rov rishonim chose not to reinterpret the gemaros --"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction. > > > : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to > follow : Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He > is working : with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific > intent that is : subject to error. > > Or a range of valid intents that a Sanhedrin could miss. We are talking about whether something is tahor or tamei. Or if an act is assur or muttar. Not such a wide range of intents. > Or, like the amoraim who argue over a quote, they mistake what the > rov of an earlier Sanhedrin pasqned, and they are not greater > bechokhmah uveminyan. No, he's talking about the intent of the mikreh. That means he assumes the mikreh has a specific intent. > : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you > do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is > assur it : cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be > assur." He : too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction. He > therefore concludes : that Eilu V'eilu merely means that one must > follow the chachmei hador. I : take it that he means that both > shittos of a machlokess are worthy of : consideration. > > Or, that both are emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. If he held that extraordinary notion, he would have said so. And he would not have had to talk about following the chachmei hador in order to explain the memra. > > : SEFER HACHINUCH states that by commanding us to follow the majority > : opinion, the Torah teaches us the fact that the majority opinion > will : always conform to the truth more than the minority. > > Well, we can't be surprised when the Chinukh follows the Rambam... I'm not surprised all the rishonim I cited follow the Rambam in this matter. > > But like the Ritva, "the truth" doesn't necessarily mean "the sole > shitah given at Sinai". Once the idioms emes le'amito and emes > lehora'ah exist, a Non-hyphenated use of the word "emes" doesn't > prove a rishon read in a non-literal read of the gemaros. According to you, there is no halachic truth until the sages decide upon it. But speaking of "conforming" to the truth indicates the prior existence of a truth to which to conform. The rishonim did not introduce the hyphenated forms of truth. You did. So while you may attempt to impose a notion (based upon a reading of a gemora contra the rishonim's), the most you can attempt to show is that they nevertheless tolerate your take, but not that they advocate it, as you claimed. > > Really, though, I expect the Chinukh did indeed follow the Rambam on > this too. Okay, one more rishonim down. > > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for microfilm of text to cover every possible case. Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless devarim? > > : Probably the thought is that it would be beyond out ability to > carry all : those details and instead we were given klallim through > each situation : could be halachically solved. This does not > contradict the fact that : there is a correct conclusion to reach > for. > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both conclusions > to Moshe. Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? You just nixed that possibility! > > : Heavenly revelations are no longer valid for determining > halacha.Why : then was there a bas kol by tanur shel Achnai? Among > the explanations : given are two by Rav Nissim Gaon ( (Brachos 19b). > (1) When the Bas Kol : declared the halacha follows R. Eliezer b'kall > makom, it meant usually, : but not necessarily here, or someting > similar. (2) It was a test for the : Chachamim to withstand the > temptation to transgress the principle of lo : bashamayim hee, > similar to when Hashem grants a false prophet the : ability to > perform a miracle (or the appearance of one). > > It was a test, because halakhah lemaaseh is acharei rabbim. But do > you really think the RBSO lied to them? The issue is not what I think is theologically valid, but what the rishonim say. Evidently Rav Nissim Gaon learns the poshut peshat in the Chumash, that Hashem does allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test, and maybe he takes as pashut peshat in Gemora Sanhedrin that Rebbi Yosay Chumash like that as well. Or maybe defining what a bas kol is vs a real nevuah would help. Or understanding why Hashem presents us with nisyanos that we perceive as contradicting other things He told us. > ... ... : --you invoke the RAN, and cite RMH's translation, which > ends : > Yet [God] also gave him a : > rule whose truth is manifest, > i.e., 'Favor the majority : > opinion'....as the sages of that > generation saw fit, for the decision : > had already been delegated > to them... ... : The last sentence reads, in Hebrew, : /aval massar > lo klall yivadda bo ha-emmess/. ... : But [God] gave him a rule > /through which one knows the truth/, 'Favor : the majority > opinion'... > > : And the context removes all doubt that the Ran explicitly denies > that he : is referring only to "Emes leHoraah.vs Emes leAmito. ... > How do you get that? Through recognizing that the Ran's whole point is that like poison, the taharas or tuma of an object is a matter of its true nature that halacha identifies, and not merely a designation imposed by the sages. He is equating the emes l'hora'ah to the emes l'amito. > The Ran says "the decision was delegated" to the sages of the > generation. How would that be anything but emes lehora'ah? A fact > finding mission wouldn't place delegation over any other tool at your > disposal. (As I asked about the tanur shel akhnai.) "Delegated" is an English word that is unnecessary to delve into. His terminology is "massar." The responsibility of discovering the true nature of things was given to the Chachamim, whose consensus, as a rule, will be successful in that endeavor. He adds that in the rare and remote instances where their consensus will be mistaken and not match the truth (notice that there is a truth to correspond to), the bitter results of that error will be outweighed by the zechus of fulfilling the mitzva of listening to the chachamim, and by the overall advantage of avoiding anarchy. I don't know why you fail to see this in the paragraphs I quoted: > The Torah's remedy for > this ever-present danger [of disunity and machlokess] was to hand > over to each generation's Sages the right to resolve halachic > questions. /For in the majority of cases this will result in both a > remedy [of the problem of machlokess] and the correct > decision/.... And even though there is the extremely remote and > practically absurd possibility that they may make a mistake, the > Torah ?did not concern itself with that remote danger. The risk is > worth taking for ?the benefit accrued. RMB: > From just before that, in derashah 5: >> It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was >> transmitted to Moses, as it says in the tractate Meggilah, R Hiyya >> bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and on them >> was written according to all the words...." teaches that HQBH showed >> Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and by the Sages... The >> 'details' provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and >> conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them >> all by Divine Word with no resolution every controversy in detail. >> Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., >> 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw >> fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is >> written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the >> judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". >> [This means] Moshe got both shitos, with no pesaq. No. This means Hashem left the truth of some matters for the sages to discern through analysis. Not that both dinnim are equally valid. He repeatedly refers to a truth to which the sages' pesak has to be maskim. He began this thesis with: This matter requires study. How can we say that two sides of a machlokess were told to Moshe from the mouth of G-d?...In truth, one of the opinions is the daas amitis and the other is the opposite. And how can we say that anything not true went out of G-d's mouth? Do you not see the Ran is assuming from the beginning that there is a daas amiti, an emes l'amito, that halacha is supposed to correspond to? And that Hashem would not tell Moshe the wrong pesak? So in his answer, he is not just reversing his position, and saying, oh, never mind, Hashem did say false things to Moshe. Instead, he is answering that Hashem exposed Moshe to both the true and false opinions, but told him that one way is correct, and here are the tools by which you and the coming sages can figure it out. > Yet [HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., > 'Favor the majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw > fit, for the decision had already been delegated to them as it is > written: 'And you shall come to the priest the Levites , and to the > judge that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....". For the third frustrating time, as I already wrote in my previous posts, "[HQBH] also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest" is a false translation, which I'm now beginning to suspect is purposely used to avoid admitting that the Ran maintains there is a truth to which halacha is expected to reflect. The correct translation is "[HQBH] gave him a klal ["acharei rabbim l'hatos"] through which will become known the truth." There is a truth to reach for, and the klal will make it known. So the primary source used to claim that the Ran differed with the Rambam on this issue is invalid. > Which is the Y-mi. Speaking of the Yerushalmi, here's how the Korban HaEida on Yevomos 1:6 explains "Eilu veElilu: Eilu vEilu divrei Elokim Chaim--because both of them are bringing a proof fromthe Torah, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu rejoices in BS and BH's sharp pilpul. For through this is seen the great glory of the Torah. Also, it is impossible that their pilpul will not produce something necessary for understanding another subject. But the halacha is like BH always, because they were zocheh to realize the truth (zachu l'kavein el ha-emes) because they were humble... Not so esoteric, and pretty much like Rashi and Ritva. The "divrei Elokim" value is not talking about the correctness of the pesak of both sides either l-horaa or l-amita, but in Hashem's joy over their involvement in His Torah. Only the "v-halacha kBH is addressing the correctness ofpesak, and regarding that, it belonged only to BH. And there was a pre-existing emes that they succeeded in realizing. The emes was not something determined through their designating it. > In any case, is not the point of the Ran that metaphysical truth > does not decide halakhah? That even if beis din picks the > metaphysically more damaging shitah, following pesaq is more > important? So you are agreeing that he holds that poskening the wrong way is metaphysically damaging? If so, when you say both shittos were handed down by Moshe, for the sages to choose from, one choice is booby trapped? And the sages have no way to correctly determine which is which? You have no difficulty with that theologically or otherwise? As explained above, the Ran maintains that the objective of the sages is to discover the correct nature of things and that equates to their halacha. There is a correct nature. Whether the sages are successful or not, and the ramifications of in the rare event of their failure, is a different issue, which he dealt with. > > The Ran is explaining why the law of contradiction would not apply > to halakhah even if it applies to metaphysics. No, not "even if" it would apply to what you call "metaphysics." The Law of contradiction applies to the true nature of things and actions, period. It's possible, although unlikely, to get the halacha wrong. But there is a one and only true and correct halacha, the one that corresponds to the true nature of things. It is only is rare cases that the system produces a false halacha, which Hashem nevertheless instructs us to follow for the overall good. > Not that one shitah is divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, Both shittos are divrei Elokim chaim. But the phrase does not mean what you think it does. > since he oturight says MRAH got both shitos, with no pesaq "every > controversy in detail". He got the factors that individually point to variant halachic conclusions, but he also got the tools by which to determine in each situation what the overweighing factors are. > ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava > Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape > the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos > shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... > Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said > ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not > arise sensible seconds and thirds. Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought, depending upon one's expertise. As Rambam and others say, people of high caliber thinking, given the same data to work with, will reach a consensus of the same conclusion. And this was the situation until the days of the Zuggos. > (Sounds kind of like R Tzadoq, no?) All I know is that the Yam Shel Shlomo defines "eilu v'eilu" to mean that "it is /as if/ [but not really that] each of the sages received his views from the mouth of G-d and the lips of Moshe. For even though two opposite predicates for one subject never escaped the lips of Moshe, a Torah scholar's thorough collaboration of the facts convinces /him/ that there is no difference between [the validity of] the information he deduced from G-d's Active Intellect by means of compelling logic [but not something actually said by Moshe], and [the validity of] the information that came to him from Moshe's mouth at Sinai." In other words, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo, "eiu veilu" merely means that each talmid chacham is confident that his logical conclusions are as factual as the data explicitly revealed at Sinai. It does not mean that he is objectively correct. It does not mean that his pesak was a choice between two opposing dinim that Moshe explicitly transmitted. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 29 08:46:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus Message-ID: <1480437978842.92006@stevens.edu> I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at Our Way by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to us by Divine Providence. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 05:36:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote: Chagiga 3b: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains ''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe Rabbeynu.'' > ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn > and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will > know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay > zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' > > Identical to the Ritva ... Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as ''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.'' Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 07:53:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161130155311.GB14354@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Chagiga 3b: : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh : echad." One G-d gave them, one : source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As : it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from : any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains : "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a : proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe : Rabbeynu." DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find. DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": : > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are : > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are going to find Emes. Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. : Identical to the Ritva ... Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true. For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in page 2): He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his tradition... Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is the exception. I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the conversation. You wrote yesterday: : 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman"). I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction. I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin with. I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be more valid in other venues. Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle" (If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic too.) Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding". We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso, Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with human progress. (And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!) As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it. This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught (like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation. It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom, vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than simply picking up a Rif. ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just as well be "despite". For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for different eras. Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. : How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite : halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, : even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that : was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose? Yes. Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both! Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case. And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". More, when I have the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 09:36:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim. There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little counter-intuitive. One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived to explain an existing custom. Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. see http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th for more details about December 4th-5th -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 30 13:26:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten : u-matar le-brachah on December 5th. : The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days : after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November : 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the : shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent : Julian calendar where both are wrong... Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough" for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1, #108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos. (I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.) So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still be off, but by far less. : The answer seems to be that we continue : old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect. Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah care about the rainy season in Bavel. (During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in his country. ) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 08:20:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus In-Reply-To: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> References: <20161130212649.GE18566@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <456113546.4407386.1480609206426@mail.yahoo.com> It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates. The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion. The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif) In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe Miami Beach. :) HM From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 1 15:31:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? Message-ID: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently, after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were... To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim Acharonim, Chova?" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 2 10:22:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar Message-ID: <5841BBFA.2080602@aishdas.org> > *From:*Lisa Liel > *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500 > *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar > > Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The > Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his > conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the > book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander > whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which > started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed > descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later > Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the > Old Persian Artaxerxes. *I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's theories. Lisa (or anyone)?* KT, GS, YGB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 11:26:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they both were. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 08:34:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms Message-ID: In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R Sender on Chanukah Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4 kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the equivalent of exile. The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now the miracle happened in EY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 16:34:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu>, <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1480811682975.89911@stevens.edu> Ben Waxman wrote My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Ben Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 3 23:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus Message-ID: Another example of a controversial custom came up in our shul this past shabbat. Some of have brought down that the body of a tzaddik doent's have tumah and so a cohen can go to the grave of a tzaddik. One sefer brings a story that he went 27 years ago on Ypm Kippur to daven at the grave pf Rashbi in Meron and saw that they had birkhat cohanim!! when he complained that said it was an old custom. He then wrote a teshuva condemning the practice. R Asher Weiss, ROY, RSZA and others have condemned the practice. A cohen friend of mine was really in Tzfat and went to visit Meron. The local rabbi in Tzfat told him that the local practice today is still that cohanim go to visit the grave of Rashbi and that it is OK despite the objections of many poskim. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 02:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos Message-ID: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any concerns of chilul Shabbos." See the above URL for more. I doubt that most people are aware of this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:19:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > I have posted the latest issue of the OU's Daf HaKashrus at > https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/Daf25-2c.pdf > According to an article in this publication "the OU poskim have recommended > using a timer when opening the refrigerator door on Shabbos, to avoid any > concerns of chilul Shabbos." You did not put in the caveat of "modern technological refrigerators" should be used with a timer. Unless you like Brisker chumras, in which case all of them should be used with timers. Most people don't need a timer on their fridge because they do not have this type of fridge. In another 10 years this percentage will change. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 6 06:58:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Opening the Door of a Refrigerator on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <1481021899305.75780@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161206145800.GC1097@aishdas.org> Since I am afraid many won't bother chasing R/Prof Levine's URL to see what RSG was talking about, I will take the time to be more specific... RYB and yb"l RHS "have recommended" using a timer when opening a refrigerator door when it has door sensors to control an automatic defrost system. In addition to the vague "have recommended" -- does this mean chumerah or din? -- there is also vagueness about whether this is the only newfangled constaption that door sensors may be employed for, or if there are other features that could put my next fridge on the watch list. And then they add, "Furthermore, even with older refrigerators it is recommended to use a timer because some of the older models may also have areas of concern." This is kept separate from "OU poskim have recommended", and is not said in their name. Then the article ends with what reads like an ad for one such device, "designed under the guidance of Rav Belsky zt"l and yb"l Rav Schachter Shlita. The device is OU certified to ensure proper Shabbos observance." No explanation about what guidance was needed. Although with indicator lights and a built in 35 year calendar, it would be easier to use than just anything you pick up at Home Depot. Still, it sounds like an equally valid alternative is to do without auto defrost and block the door sensor. Just like many do for the light switch. (I just leave the bulb unscrewed all week around.) Even a magnetic sensor can be blocked, despite having no reachable moving parts, it just means taping a stip of magnet to the right spot. I am pretty sure your freezer won't become a block of ice even over a 3 day yom tov. Whereas turning on and off your fridge for three days will reduce lifespan of the food in it. (Especially given chalav yisrael's typically shorter shelf-life.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Risk/Reward Message-ID: <563ce351712f40f180893c75566984d2@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered? The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs. So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? 1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or aman muat] 2. What's at stake [kapparat klal Yisrael or mitzvah b'alma] 3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios [replace kohain gadol vs. using an unmarried one] 4. Is the risk truly random? (Mortality as a random variable vs. punishment/destiny) 5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm (ruin theory)? 6. Is the risk to an individual or a group? 7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 02:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought Message-ID: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 06:53:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7abf401e-a360-2895-1981-065db63c3ee9@sero.name> On 07/12/16 05:44, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu?s and al cheit?s, you > may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it > would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we > required to ask forgiveness for something we haven?t acted on? 1. *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. 2. Teshuva is not just for aveiros. For instance, even tzadikim who literally do no aveiros at all need to do teshuvah, because teshuvah means turning oneself into a better person, and there's no limit to that. Yesterday's mitzvah can be today's "aveira", so to speak. So even if one dismisses an inappropriate thought the moment one becomes conscious of it, and thus has no actual aveira to be punished for, it makes sense to do teshuvah for being the kind of person to whom such thoughts occur, i.e. to try to turn oneself into the kind of person to whom they wouldn't. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 7 07:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161207151251.GA10779@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:50AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you : may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While : it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we : required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? In fact, gaavah one felt but didn't act on would be an accomplishment. Although tiqun hayeitzer is a still greater accomplishment than this kibbush hayeitzer. Fixing the gaavah is better than overcoming it. (See Or Yisrael letter 30, the beginning of the closing setion.) But it begins "Al cheit shechatanu lefanekha be..." IOW, we aren't asking forgiveness for our gaavah. We are asking for selichah, mechilah and kaparah for all the sins it motivated. And I think the same is implicitly true for Ashamnu. But that's just conjecture. But there is an oft-discussed chiluq between a teshuvah on sins (Hil' Teshuvah 1:1) and a teshuvah on character (Ibid 7:3). So perhaps vidui on those middos still awaiting tiqun is appropriate even if not sinful. I just don't think that's what the vidui in our machzorim is doing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 05:45:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Mrs Fastag has written a fascinating book on the Aschalta Degeula, see outline review below. It is available online as a free download. Here is a dropbox link, or email me offline and I will email you a copy. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77517350/Whatever%20Happened%20to%20the% 20Aschalta%20Degeula.pdf The First Flowering of our Redemption? ..Just before Chanukah, I met Devorah Fastag who wrote a brilliant, original sefer that influenced my thinking about the status of women in Judaism very deeply. I met her in December at a Torah lecture that she gave and, because I was so impacted by her book The Moon's Lost Light, I took the opportunity to ask her if she had written anything else. She told me about a lengthy essay she had written about the establishment of the State of Israel and its relationship to messianic times. It was difficult reading, she warned me, not a sugar-coated, romantic picture. What she wrote was ill-suited for a feel-good Yom HaAtzmaut program. I was warned that it would be emotionally hard to read and might create cognitive dissonance for me as a religious Zionist. After I read the essay as a whole (it's 76 pages - the length of a small book), I knew that this Torah needed to be read by other people as well. Here's the official promo: Why does the State of Israel resemble the "beginning of the redemption" physically, yet not spiritually? This booklet delves into the hidden reasons behind the events of ikvesa demeshicha--the pre-messianic period--to unravel the mystery of the State of Israel. The essay doesn't cost money, but it does require an investment of time and thought. It's a powerful essay that just might change the way you understand what was going on spiritually at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mordechai cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:35:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula In-Reply-To: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> References: <086701d25159$4efabc80$ecf03580$@com> Message-ID: <20161208143553.GB32422@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:16AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : For those who have read the book "The Moon's Lost Light" (by Devorah Fastag : aka Devorah Heshelis) and have interest in her other works, or have interest : in the issue of "Whatever Happened to the Aschalta Degeula" Except that non-Zioniasts wouldn't have this question. Nor would non-messianic Zionists like R' Reines, ROY, RYBS, and others. RAYK saw the first glimmerings of the ge'ulah in the idealism of the turn of the 20th cent. (Igeros 3 pg 195) The rise of Communism and Secular Zionism was well at the expense of Torah (at least, among Jews), but they were reawakenings of ideals found in the Torah that "just" needed purification. But post-Zionism and the Hitnatqut from Gush Qatif are not the biggest problems Messianic Zionism has faced. After all, for all the post-Zionists, the kippah serugah community has an increasing role in the running of the country. (What percentage of military command and of fighting soldiers are DL nowadays?) One could argue the glass is half full. Compare that to the Shoah, which was also after RAYK's ashchalta degeulah. Megilah 17b says "milchamah nami aschalta dege'ulah he", but that is about the war that ends with Ben David's victory "bemotza'ei" the 7th year. It would be a stretch to tie a war we were largely non-combatant victims in to some future victory some 71+ years later. Rashi (sham) says it's talking about ge'ulah from tzaros not the ge'ulah from galus. Drawing from Shemoneh Esrei -- Ge'ulah is a separate berakhah than Golios, Boneh Y-m, and Birkas David. (7, 10, 14, anf 15. For that matter, 10 through 15 are a sequence about the final redemption. And arguably much of #16 ["Retzeih"] as well, if noth the chasimah.] Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:55:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel : should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically) : outside of Israel.... Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:28:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Which is an even stronger statement than what I was saying when I tried > to convince you that galus (the distancing of the Shechinah) and golah > (BY not being in the land) are different concepts. Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 08:16:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms In-Reply-To: References: <20161208145501.GD32422@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161208161651.GC16636@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:28:05PM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Again this is only when there is a foreign ruler which is not true today Yeah, but it does open the door for the chassidishe rabbeim who say that galus is a spiritual state that isn't ended by the establshment of a secular government. Mah li Yavan, mah li Western Democracy by Jews -- either way there is a level of hesteir Panim. Which wasn't even true under Menashe, as the other governmental authorities -- the nevu'ah, kehunah, beis din hagadol, still operated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 06:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova? In-Reply-To: <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> References: <1480635043438.30964@stevens.edu> <5062fa83-151c-c2ca-9db8-70653028cb0b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20161208144747.GC32422@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being : machmir about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably : violating a doreitta or two regarding how to treat people. Not really. If she is an Ashkenazis, she was machmir. (If a Sepaharadis she correctly followed iqar hadin.) But it was they who violated the BALC, and nothing to do with a chumerah leading to problems. This din is an example of Ashk vs Seph possibly being based on EY vs Bavel. In the Tosefta and Y-mi, the only reason given for mayim acharonim is salt. And so, there would be little reson for it once we stopped using those kinds of salt. It is only in the Bavli that mayim acharonim and mayim rishonim are compared, implying the latter is also about tum'ah. And it would seem that Ashk maintained EY's more pragmatic approach, whereas Seph are more machmir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:08:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? Message-ID: <1481209682336.85954@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomi Q. Can one use any type of bread product for lechem mishneh? A. Matzos, bagels, pitas, or any other type of bread, may be used for lechem mishneh. * It is preferable to eat only pas Yisrael on Shabbos. One who does so, may use bread that is not pas Yisroel for the second loaf. Pri Migadim explains that if one only has loaves that are pas akum, they may be eaten on Shabbos, even though one is normally stringent. (Pri Megadim M.Z. 274:2). * One may borrow a challah (or any other bread) from a neighbor to use as lechem mishneh, even though it must be returned and cannot be eaten (Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 55:13). * Rivevos Efraim (1:202) writes that one may even use dairy bread (which was made according to halacha, either made in a small batch or with a unique shape) as the second loaf for a meat meal, even though it may not be eaten at the meat meal. * If one does not have a second loaf, hamotzi should be recited on a single challah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 07:47:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161208154711.GE32422@aishdas.org> I think nidon didan is related to an older and discussed question: using a teapot with a strainer on it. According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even though okhel mitokh pesoles. However, the CI (#53, "min ha'amur") is meiqil for akhilah le'alter. RCKanievsky (back of Ta'ama deQra, #41) testifies that lemaaseh he saw them use such a pot for tea 'sense for immediate consumption. According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. (Tiqunim uMilu'im #159) And the MB (504:20, BH 319:4 "haborer") allows borer when one throws away soe of the okel. The CI (stil #53) has a slightly different variant. According to the MB, one may take a bone out of fish if one takes a little fish along with the bone. According to the CI, one would have to suck off and get hana'ah from something on the bone. (At least, I think that's the MB's masqanah, BH 3914", "mitokh okhel", near the end, appears to be more like the CI.) So, I think RSZA wouldn't have a problem with our french press even for coffee. And the MB would give a second reason to be meiqil for tea, if you do not / can not press so far down as to put all the drinkable tea above the filter. About the line between boreir and meraqeid, it's not defined by the use of a keli -- and they may well overlap. Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether it's ALSO meraqeid. The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer happens at once. Of only questionable relevance, but I found it while looking things up and I thought it was worth sharing. Rashba (Shabbos 139b) divides liquids into three: 1- Tzalul: Most people would drink a clear liquid as is. Straining with a keli to make the drinkable better is mutar. (So keep your Brita filter.) 2- A liquid that only some people would drink that way can be strained kele'achair yad, such as if the keli is not one made for straining. 3- If no one would drink it as is, it's boreir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 8 18:14:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Kaf haChaim (319:113), if the leaves haven't settled > to the bottom or if there isn't much tea left, then it's boreir. Even > though okhel mitokh pesoles. (RAM already noted the latter about > boreir bekeli, although he believes these cases are really meraqeid.) To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the problem is M'raked. This is not much different than when a posek says that it is assur to get married during Sefira. What he really means is that there is a very strong minhag not to get married during sefira, not that the Sanhedrin legislated against it. > According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that > akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: > using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against > the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the footnote 125 that you cited. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 02:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:18:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought Message-ID: <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 05:50:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<*Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would certainly require teshuvah. >> The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts ------------------------------------ Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that this mashal resonates with. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 07:15:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yom kippur thought In-Reply-To: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3da497f85820403f8e38adaeaba5a371@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20161209151517.GA23657@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >:> *Having* a thought can't be an aveira, because it's involuntary, but >:> *consciously entertaining* it can be one, and often is. That would >:> certainly require teshuvah. >: The famous Ibn Ezra on "lo tachmod" seems to disagree. He gives the >: example that no one would dream of marrying a princess (at least in >: pre-Disney days -) ). So one can train oneself not to have evil thoughts : Yes-but in current western society I have yet to meet someone that : this mashal resonates with. First, to sum up: I think we're saying that a person isn't all that culpably for having a thought beshe'as ma'aseh, but he could be held culpable for not working on rerouting his train of thought BEFORE the moment. Mussar, with a capital M. (Although that too requires thought. So although there is cuplability, that too may not be absolute. But we can go meta again, and increase their culpability yet further. The culpability not to decide to change how we relate to changing our train of thoughts will itself be greater, than the culpability for avoiding this particulr thought, etc... But I bet it's not just tinoqos shenisheb'u for which the sum doesn't reach 1.) To me, the IE is talking about things beyond what REED calls one's bechirah point. So, whie few of us could know what it's like to relate to royalty as royalty, so that dating a princass is beyond the bechirah point. But current western society is big on declaring some negative decision too *close* compared to the bechirah point for someone to avoid. E.g. we can talk about an "online porn addiction". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 9 08:12:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161209161229.GB23657@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:14:08PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : To clarify: I am NOT claiming that "Posek ABC says that the problem is : Borer but I say that the problem is M'raked." Rather, my claim is that when : the posek says that the problem is Borer, then he is merely being : imprecise, and the truth is that the posek himself actually means that the : problem is M'raked. But as I wrote further down, I am not sure the chiluq is the one you made. To repeat: > ... Shabbos 138a has a machloqes about whether meshamer is a toladah > (Rabah) of boreir because it's okhel mitokh pesoles, or (R' Zeira) > of meraqeid because the pesoles is on top of the okhel. > Rashi says the question is which hasra'ah would work. > Tosafos (on 73b) say it's definitely boreir, the machloqes is whether > it's ALSO meraqeid. > The Ran (chiddushim 137b) says that meraqeid is only with solid foods, > unlike meshameir, which is from a liquid. > The Biur Halakhah (319:9) says that meraqeid is a process and meshamer > happens at once. I would think that the Ran is saying our case is meraqeid, whereas the BH would say it's meshamer, which in turn is either a toladah of boreir or of meraqeid (Rashi) or it's a tolda of boreir that may also be a tolada of meraqeid (Tosados). In any case, saying that any boreir bekeli is really using language loosely and should technically be called meraqeid doesn't seem to fit any of them. :> According to SSK (3 fn 125), RSZA is also meiqil. He argues that :> akhila le'alter is also derekh akhiah, and allowed. Other examples: :> using a saltshaker that has dry rice in it, putting a spoon against :> the edge of soup-pot to make an ad-hoc strainer when pouring. : Yes, I must admit that he does say that. But please look at footnote 179, : just a few pages later. The SSK quotes RSZA as forbidding rice in the : saltshaker, and then he concedes difficulty reconciling this with the : footnote 125 that you cited. Fn 125 was a historicaly later ruling, so I assumed it was more authoritative. See also fn 159. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 14 02:55:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:55:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The conflict that has raged for thousands of years Message-ID: <1481712907668.9187@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32.8 8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 02:38:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:38:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Righteous Person's Property Message-ID: <1481798303396.16925@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH"s commentary on Bereishis 32:25 25 Ya'akov was left alone, and someone wrestled with him until the break of day. According to our Sages, nishtyar al pachim k'tanim (Chullin 91a): After he brought everything across, he returned to see whether something had been forgotten. And to this they add: mikan l'tzadikim shechaviv aleyhem mamonom yosar migofom v'kol kach lamah l'fi she'ain poshtin yadeihen b'gezel (ibid.). Property that a righteous person acquires honestly - even something of the slightest value - is sacred in his sight. He will not squander it or allow it to go to waste, and he is held responsible for its proper use. A vast sum is like a shoelace to him, when he gives up this sum for the sake of a good cause; but a shoelace is like a vast sum to him, if it is about to be wasted for no reason or purpose. A person who is not pshet yado b'gezel, who calls his own only what he has acquired through honest effort, will see the graces of God's providence in every possession that he acquires; everything that he owns - even the very smallest possession - has come to him through honest sweat and toil and through God's blessing, and hence is of inestimable value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 14:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity Message-ID: <1481840693403.47283@stevens.edu> In Parshas Vayishlach, after Yaakov Avinu's epic battle with Eisav's guardian angel, we are given a Biblical commandment prohibiting us to partake of the Gid Hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of any animal. One of the greatest Torah giants of his period, Rav Yonason Eibeshutz recorded a related fascinating historical incident, which posthumously sparked a raging halachic controversy... For the full story read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Gid HaNasheh Incongruity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 16:11:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> References: <20161006203249.GI22128@aishdas.org> <9818e234-8b8d-5f5a-1a6c-cc192a657cf3@gmail.com> <20161113215719.GF13630@aishdas.org> <20161121220727.GA767@aishdas.org> <25d7970c-289c-715d-e7c1-2a6f0fd961fd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161216001153.GA3919@aishdas.org> To recap my verion of the story so far... I was alleging that the Rambam (and perhaps the Chinukh, perhaps not) supported a position that there was One True halakhah, and it is the job of the poseiq to try his best to use the system Hashem gave us to find it. Because it was possible for the poseiq to err, the Rambam's system would give more power to later posqim who are convinced they found the true pesaq to overturn earlier interpretations. Meanwhile, the majority of rishonim, including Rashi, the Ritva and the Ran, do not believe that the Law of Contradiction applies to halakhah. And there are a number of gemaros that call conflicting opinions both divrei E-lokim Chaim [DEC] (letaheir and letam'ei, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, etc...) And in this system, reaching a different answer doesn't mean the earlier answer was wrong in an absolute sense. And so there is an authority given to the fact that one tzad was made halakhah lema'aseh and nispasheit as such beyond the authority the Rambam would give. "Ein ladayan ela mah she'einav ro'os" would only apply to an existing pesaq that the poseiq feels rested on error, a faulty application of the process. Not simply because he feels an alternate shitah is far more compelling. And the tanur shel achnai appears to tell us to follow the procedure for determining halakhah even against outright supernatural proof otherwise. Which would be problematic if we were talking about a truth-finding system, as the beis medrash no longer had a safeiq levareir once the carob tree uprooted itself. OTOH, if both positions are DEC, and the system is how to pick which one is halakhah, then proof that R' Eliezer was speaking truth does not rule out R Yehoshua's position from also being true. And the third line of argument I empoyed was looking at Shelomo's vs Ezra's mizbeiach -- according to Shelomo's pesaq, the mizbeiach in bayis sheini was pasul, and accordng to Ezra's pesaq, the nisuch hamayim during bayis rishon was no good. Ezra even knew he was switching pesaqim! How could he do so unless he thought he outsmarted Shelomo haMelekh and centuries of batei dinim (which I am summarily dismissing), or if he thought that both shitos were DEC and the new era called for a new halachic response? Similarly, halakhah following Beis Hillel because they cited Bei Shammai because they showed more kavod, or because they were more numerous, even though Beis Shammai were brighter. The criteria don't make sense from a truth-finding perspective. This position avoids the question of why HQBH would give us a system by which it's possible to derive wrong answers. After all, He knew He left the derivation in there; in what sense is it not part of His intent when giving us the Torah? But from this perspective aren't wrong; they are simply not the route up Har Hashem best fitting how we as a society choose to ascend Har Hashem. Notice, though, that both sides could explain Moshe Rabbeinu's visit to R' Aqiva's class identically. Moshe received the lesson even though he personally didn't recognize its content because he received the system by which R' Aqiva and those before him reached the conclusions presented. However, the position I'm ascribing to rov rishonim would have it more literally true -- everything derivable with that system IS the Torah given to Moshe. The Rambam would have to explain what comfort it is to Moshe, if knowing that in principle he can go from what he was taught to R' Aqiva's teachings does not mean that he would necessarily know that R Aqiva's teaching were Emes leAmito. And it is only the conclusions that Moshe received outright that are halakhah leMoshe miSinai. Although the idiom would also be used for halakhos lemaaseh that can be derived from the system Moshe received for which no valid derivation for an opposing shitah exists. I noted that the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Contradiction fail when dealing with the human condition, as we are riddled with antinomies, dialectics and ambivalence. And the role of halakhah is to address that condition, no? But the LoEM and LEC also fail when trying to discuss things that operate along spectra, where drawing a line for a predicate to end -- this shade is a kind of red but this almost identical shade is not, this number of grains of sand in a pile is a heap. A fetus at this point of development is a human with all the moral rights that entails, but a moment earlier? It is therefore unsurprising to claim that some rule the Greeks had success with when describing the world of action in a theoretical abstract do not apply to the world of halakhah applied to shades-of-gray reality. In my previous post I looked at RZL's quotes from the Ritva and Rashi, where they appear to me to be saying that machloqesin directly about what the din is are superior, because eilu va'eilu; whereas a machloqes about what an earlier rav said is inferior because one position must be wrong. RZL is generalizing from that exception, rather than looking at the text before the highlight, describing a more typical machloqes. Implied, by the way, is that "eilu va'eilu" does not simply mean that each are to be creedited for trying their best, since that could also be true if they were arguing about what their rebbe held. It is about both shitos being emes le'amito, which is harder to be true when speaking about a specific rav's shitah. (Although they could have heard him at different times, before and after changing shitah. In which case, the one who testified to what he held "before" thinking that's the rav's maskanah, is really in error.) And that Rashi talks about "lehavkhin ei zeh YI-kasher -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like. Now adding the Derashos haRan : This thing requires iyun -- how can it be said that the two katos in the machloqes were said to Moshe miPi haGevurah, behold Shamai and Hillel dispute.. However, the matter is like this. It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually. However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos. Again we see that MRAH was given both opinions by HQBH. Then he was given a rule for determining which is halakhah. A rule he himself could only apply if throgh nevu'ah he would see what will in the future be nimnu begamru; a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai. Not a rule for determining emes le'amito -- after all, Hashem Himself taught him both! -- but emes lehora'ah. As for emes le'amito and the metaphysics behind halakhhah (eg tum'ah or qedushah as metaphysical attributes with objective reality), the Ran tells us the point of halakhah is to align us with tiqun to foster growth in general. Not that it should or even can align 100%. We also raised the Maharal, Be'eir haGolah, be'er 1, end of pereq 5, into 6: That which it said that all of them are from Adon haMaasim. Why does it have to say here "miPi Adon Kol haMaasim", and what is it's inyan here? Rather, he wants to say that just as H' yisbarakh is the Adon Kol haMaasim, and from Him one finds a universe of mixture, that has in it opposites, and where there is one the opposite of the other. ... And so... even though one thing has changing bechinos [we just came off a discussion of 4 element theory] all were given from H' yisbarakh. Just that one is more iqar and it is determining, VEHU HALAKHAH. Not emes le'amito, notice. In fact, the Maharal compares the plurality of shitos coming from HQBH to the plurality of different things that He made in this universe. He is Adon KOL haMaasin, even those that are opposites. Mikol maqom, do not say that the thing which is not iqar has no significance as all, this is not true. For someone who listens to all the dei'os grasps the idea according to the thing's bechinos mischalfos, and he learned Torah of WHAT THE THING IS, THAT IS HAS BECHINOS MISCHALFOS. IT IS ONLY LE'INYAN HALAKHAH THAT ONE IS MAKHRIA' ON THE OTHER. Ch 6 continues by saying that sometimes the bechinos are equal, and there is no mackhria' and that is why Hillel and Shammai needed a bas qol -- to tell us that both arguments deal with aspects of reality that are equally at the fore, and that even so there is only one din. But in other machloqesin, it pays to keep on looking to find which facet of the Torah is iqar at our point in history. As I said: not more true ("Hu bara hadavar sheyeish bo shenei bechinos"), but more appropriate given how we are climbing Har H'. : Tiyuvta is a : checkmate against a shiita, and establishes the other shittah as the : correct one. Because the authoritative facts--sometimes an authoritative : memra, sometimes a posuk--supports the opposite halacha from the one : maintained by the opposition... Yes, because allowing Contradiction in the ream of shitos doesn't mean that an amora who wouldn't contradict a tanna intentionally contradicted one. Or that he would follow a daas yachid, or... Denying the LoC doesn't mean logical anarchy. There would be no reasoning at all that way! :> Here's a related quote from R Tzadoq haKohein, Resisei Laylah #[16]: :> Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person, its :> opposite simultaneously arises... When it comes to the realm of po'el, :> it cannot be that two [contradictory] things are true simultaneously. :> In the realm of machashavah, on the other hand, it is impossible for a :> person to think about one thing without considering the opposite, : Not a rishon... Same is true of the Maharal. But whose understanding of the rishonim are you going to bet on -- your and mine, or the Maharal's and R' Tzadoq's? Or are you saying that either is capable of going against all the rishonim without even trying to address that fact? : machshava when one thinks of one thing he /considers/ the opposite... More than that: Therefore, every chidush divrei Torah which comes into the world via some chakham, bechreikh the opposite does to. This ta'am (Mishlei 17:14), "poteir mayim reishis madon" -- mayim is Torah, whomever opens some gate and speaks (or: opens some gate and idea -- vedibeir? vedavar?) is the source of strife and machloqes. They za"l [Shemu'el to R' Yehudah, on this verse] said in the first pereq of Sanhedrin (7a), "the beginning of 100 [gematria 'madon'] strifes". Meaning: There are 40 sha'arei bbinah and that is why there are 49 panim tamei, and 49 panim tahor... R' Tzadoq is placing the gemara of 49 letamei and 49 letaheir in terms of the lack of LoC in the realm of thought. > ... : When RITVA on the same daf quotes Rashi as the correct peshat, it is : because he too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction .(Yes, the : same Ritva who elsewhere quotes the kabbalistic teaching about Moshe : being told 49 considerations pointing to opposite conclusions... > This is not some qabbalistic esoterica -- it's in both Talmuds and > Mes Soferim! Chazal benigleh say that Moshe was given both set of > arguments. : I'm surprised that someone who repeatedly invokes the Rambam's rule : about not taking Aggadta literally would argue this, especially to : support a literal interpretation that posits a logical impossibility. Not taking agggadita historically does not mean ignoring a statement the gemara makes about how halakhah works. IOW, eilu va'eilu DEC has to describe how halakhah works even if I had reason to deny the literal story. And agian it is not a logical impossibility. It is only impossible within a given system of logic. One we have no evidence Chazal accepted. One that is avoided in many artificial intelligence applications and in studying quantum phenomenona. See some alternatives in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic There is a box of some 25 other logical systems hidden at the bottom of the page. Hit "show" and see what's out there. THAT was the non-esoterica I was speaking of. "Classical Logic" is only Classical in the culture built atop the Greeks. We have no indication Chazal accepted it, and a number of gemaros we would have to twist to fit them to Western intutions. To me, that makes Chazal's use of a different logic exoteric. There are also overt cases, like when Rashi explains that an "almanas isa" is called a doubh because "isa lashon safeiq hu". Doubt is a mixed state, a different kind of truth value than "I don't know". And covertly as I mentioned, I heard RYBS use the term "multivalent logic" in the middle of his Yiddish when discussing bein hashemshos. (Why an esrog that is qadosh bh"s because it was used on the day before is therefore qadosh the entire day the bh"s begins. Because bh"s is an 'isa' of both days.) Actually, I even proposed that this was the whole parish vs qavua split -- qavua deals with things that already entered the realm of po'el, as R Tzadoq put it, and therefore the LoC applies. The din is one or the other, we don't know which, so play safe on a deOraisa -- kemechtza al mechtza. Whereas kol deparish is still in machashavah logic, and its halachic "state" is an isa of conflicting pesaqim. But given that there are a multiplicity of logic systems, and Chazal never say "we follow the Greek system", if the gemara looks like it defies that system we need proof that we should read it otherwise. The fact that Classical Logic seems self-evident to those of us who grew up in the West is insufficient. After all, had we been exiled to Persia, India or the Far East, we wouldn't have such assumptions. :> [If] You want to argue that these rishonim did not take those gemaras :> at face value, do so. : Yes, I do. And I proved it. I think I showed that your proofs do not remain when we quote the same source more fully, and remove your insertions. Which brings us to the Shelah (Toledos Adam Beis Chochma, 3rd): The Ritva za"l.... It is masur to the chakhmei ha'emes of Yisrael in every generation, and the hakhra'ah would be like them. This is correct lefi haderash, and in the derekh ha'emes there is ta'am [and sod] in this matter. Ad kan. First let's note that the Shelah starts by bringing the Ritva as I understood him, which he then follows up with: : And I say, where it is possible to uphold the words of both of them : [... ], then their adage : "eilu v'eilu" is justified (yitsdak). And indeed this is justified : in the account of Pilegesh B'Giveah...because it is possible to : maintain both their words. However, (a) when this one prohibits and : that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And : (b) regarding decision-making [for practical halacha] (hach-ra-a), This isn't (a) and (b). The sentence begins "aval" and the next clause is "ve'im bishvil". So I would translate this part: However, when this one prohibits and that one permits, it is impossible to uphold both their words. And regarding decision-making (hach-ra-a), being that it only follows one side's opinion, and we do not uphold the words of his colleague, if they were divrei Elokim Chaim, how can one of His devarim be thrown to the ground? IOW, halakhah lemaaseh, po'el, is different than what could be done with PbG (where they could establish both sides), and therefore when it comes to hakhra'ah only one stands. Which continues the idea as he presented it in the Ritva. : Rabbanei Tsarfas, z"l. For they are not sufficient (ainam maspikim) : in this. But let it [the meaning of eilu v'eilu] rest [instead] : b'taam v'sod sheyaish bo, al derech ha-emes hamekubal [acceptable] : as the Rav (Ritva) z"l indicated (k'mo sheramaz haRav z"l). Therefore, he rejects the Aristotilians from Provence who were enamored with shitas haRambam. RZL's next source... : RAMBAN on Devarim 17:11 says that one should not be afraid to : follow Beis Din Gadol even if one thinks they erred... He : is working with the assumption that the mikreh has a specific intent : that is subject to error. Or a range of valid intents that a : Sanhedrin could miss. DH "Yemin uSemol". The Rambam tells you that the reason for having a single right pesaaq is that otherwise "the machloqos will multiply, and the Torah will become multiple Toros." Not because we need to find the one Retzon haBorei, but pragmatically it wouldn't work. After all, "al mashma'us da'atam nasan li haTorah" -- a pretty literal description of Constitutive Theory, that the pesaq is right because Hashem gave chakhamim the power to define right. Continuing the Ramban "Even if they err" -- but as he clarifies in the seifa, "looks to me like they err." The Ramban rules out actually erring by (basically) invoking siyata diShmaya. An apparent error just means I found a different shitah more compelling. It is over real error vs apparent error that he disagrees with Rashi's girsa of the medrash. According to Rashi, the pasuq is saying that even if they actually decide on something that is neither eilu nor va'eilu. According to the Ramban, that doesn't happen, and the pasuq is telling you that if they aren't ruling like your eilu, they are correctly ruling like their va'eilu. (Tangent: why does the Ramban bring the calendar controversy between R' Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel as an example? The calendar is based on "hachodesh hazeh lakhem" -- we have the power to set the dates, and astronomy is secondary. Regardless of what one thinks of pesaq in general. Now, had it been a machloqes over which day was Shabbos...) And next, Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't ecen necessarily argue: : TOS RABBEYNU PERETZ (Eruvin 13b)begins by taking eilu v'eilu as you do, : but cannot accept it because it is illogical. "If something is : assur it cannnot be muttar, and if something is muttar it cannot be : assur." He too is working with the Law of Non-Contradiction... : ... I take it that he means that both shittos : of a machlokess are worthy of consideration. Or, that both are : emes, but you cannot in practice hold both. Yes, the reisha talks about DEC, where contradiction is logical, and the seifa says but we need to pasqen like only one, since in action we have the Law of Contradiction. IOW, I fully agree with the "Or" in your final sentence. :> > :> Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:2 (a similar passage in Tractate Sofrim :> : > 16:5): R' Yanai said: Had the Torah been given decided, we wouldn't > : :> have a leg to stand on. Where? "And Hashem spoke to Moshe." He > said : :> before Him: Master of the World, tell me what is the > halakhah. He : :> responded "Decide according to the majority...." So > that the Torah : be :> interpretable 49 ways tamei and 49 ways tahor. > > : I don't have : peshat in why we would be at a disadvantage if we were > : explicitly : given a pesak for each and every situation that may > arise. > > ... : aside from it being physically impossible. Not a limitation on > the : RBSO, but on human language. There isn't enough room on the > planet for : microfilm of text to cover every possible case. : Then why in the world are you taking, and basing your position, on a : reading of "har'u lo /al kol va-davar/ 49 panim etc." that proposes : that Moshe Rabbeynu handed down two halachos for each of those countless : devarim? I don't know what you're asking. HQBH gave the Torah that way because it was the only way the Infinite can talk to the finite. By giving us the means to reach answers ourselves for most things, since we can't possibly receive from Him every answer. : > > Except that you're working with a Hashem [Who] gave both : conclusions > to Moshe. : Literally? As opposed to just leaving it to the sages to determine the : correct halacha through application of the rules they were given? And : Moshe literally and explicitly gave those conclusions to bnei Yisroel? : You just nixed that possibility! No, not literally. Via the rules. IOW, there is no procedurally correct way to get a non-emes result. Even though the procedures can produce conflicting answers to the same question. One last source, the Yam Shel Shelomo. :> ... Down to the Yam shel Shlomo, who wrote (Introduction to Bava :> Kamma) "Never did two opposite predicates for one subject escape :> the lips of Moshe" ("shelo yatza hadavar mipi Moshe l-olom lihyos :> shnei hafachim b-nosei echad")... :> Which he contrasts with that which is deduced from what Moshe said :> ... because nothing emerges from the seikhel hapo'al, which does not :> arise sensible seconds and thirds. : Yes, one can deduce things from what someone says, either correctly or : incorrectly gauging what he meant or would have thought... The Yam shel Shelomo is saying that halakhah leMoshe miSinai is beyond machloqes, because Moshe could only have repeated one shitah. (And PERHAPS, like the Ritva and Rashi say about machloqesin geru'in between two rabbanim arguing about what their rebbe said, one side must be wrong.) However, Torah given to Moshe implicitly via rules of deduction waas done so done so for the very purpose of allowing for dialectic. (Dialectic isn't just about two conflicting theses; it's about how some questions and the discussion getting to an answer could be of more value than the answer itself. It is why we still learn Shas, and the focus didn't shift to the Rif.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 15 20:18:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> R' JR: Once upon a Neilah teary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a sin of forgotten yore, as II read the Art Scroll lists I wondered only this and nothing more? (Apologies to E.A. Poe) When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask forgiveness for something we haven't acted on? ------------------------------------ (I can't wait to see the rest of the poem!) Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. I've come lately to see Teshuvah as us saying to Hashem, "That's not me - that's the other guy who did the aveirah - I would never do that!" - sort of substituting the new you for the old you. (I'm sure I've seen this concept elsewhere, but no idea where.) So if a person doesn't do teshuvah on that negative potential energy in his bad thought, he's leaving the "new him" with the potential to do the bad act that the bad thought could lead to. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 09:58:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? Message-ID: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/gl2o6mc from Jewish Action Magazine. "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one reason: bandleaders." See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 16 11:24:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" Message-ID: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 17 10:38:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 09:03:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] It's" an inyan" In-Reply-To: References: <840b1862be0245bdbf1f162ac9507e7e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: When I've heard it used it is in reference to a custom, a chumrah, based a late source, often kabbalistic. On 12/17/2016 8:38 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 12/16/2016 9:24 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: >> what halachic category does "being an inyan" fall into? > > A vague one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 18 17:53:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, despite their being contradictory and incompatible. The future sages' job was to choose between these two truths (based on their proclivities towards geverua, chessed, etc.). There is no one-and-only-truth. Any references to the sages determining the one truth is referring to a hyphenated-emes, the emes-l'hor'a'ah, not the emesses l'amitah. They are referring solely a correctly identified previous pesak, but the opposite ruling is still an ''emes.'' I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of the sages. Here is another quote from the Drashos HaRan (Drash 5, second version) that should make it clear that he does not argue with the Rambam and Geonim, and like them does not endorse a ''multiple emeses'' concept. ''We are commanded to follow the chachmei hadoros whether they agree to the emes OR ITS OPPOSITE... (BM 86) has an Aggada about the halacha when there is a safek whether the baheres or the white hair appeared first on one's skin. Rabbah bar Nachmani recited, he heard in the Mesivta d-Rakia [the tsadikim learning together in Heaven after having passed away] that HKB''H says [the person is] tahor, but the entire mesivta deRakia says tamei. ...When he passed away he said, ''tahor, tahor, and a bas kol went out and said Ashreycha...that your body is tahor and your neshama went out b-taharah. ''In truth, they entertained no doubt about what they grasped from Hashem Yisborach, that He was metaher b-emes *V'LO ZULASO* ...For although they knew that AL DERECH HA-EMES the [halacha in the] safek case is [that the person is] tahor, they said 'tamei' because the Torah's decision is handed over to them [for what they can conclude] during their lives, and their seichel compelled them to say tamei. It was proper that it should be [considered] tamei EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH ... and the fact they were me-tam-im was only due to a shortcoming of their seichel." The Ran says that only the din of tahor is the ''emes'', V'LO ZULASO, explicitly rejecting that tamei is ''another emes'' in Hashem's eyes. The context is what is the true state of the object in Hashem's eyes, not merely the true pesak chosen by predecessors. All the hyphenation in the world will not change this fact. So when he said (quoting RMB's translation and capitalizations), ''It is a known thing that the whole TSBK and TSBP were given over to Moshe... And Moshe learned them all miPi haGevurah, WITHOUT DETERMINATION OF EACH MACHLOQES individually...'' which I think we're both taking as referring to future issues, yes, the Ran is saying Moshe was not explicitly told the pesak. ''However,'' as the Ran continues, ''However, he was given the rule by which the truth is known, which is: acharei rabbim lehatos.'' He was told given the methodologies which when applied would determine THE TRUTH. And not a hyphenated truth. Because there is a one-and-only emes V'LO ZULASO which in rare instances the chochmei hadoros may reach the OPPOSITE of. In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha. Hashem instead tells him that the future sages will decide. RMB characterizes this as ''a rule that depends on a future event, not the revelation at Sinai.'' But all this means is that Moshe is aware that the future situations are innumerable, and the relevant factors that determine the halacha in each case have different strengths in each one of those situations. Moshe is overwhelmed. He cannot hope to anticipate every situation, much less apply the methodology to every one. So Hashem tells him that the sages of each generation will deal with the issues they confront. They will apply the methodology that Moshe transmits, and come to the same result he would. This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the overall principles that G-d taught Moshe.'' Indeed, the Maharzu on this passage identifies the 'overall principles' with the Thirteen Principles and he identifies the unrevealed details with the many laws resulting from their application. He writes, ''These 'overall principles' [which were given to Moshe] are identical with the darcay ha'drash. For each of the rules of Torah interpretation produces an infinite number of teachings [which were not (explicitly) revealed to Moshe]. And, incidentally, positing that the Ran and other rishonim rejected the previous view of the Geonim and Rambam that pesak is a matter of retrieval is itself paradoxical. For they would be saying that the real explanation of machlokos in talmudical times was forgotten by these earlier authorities, and Ran, etc., reviewing the Gemoros and Midrashim retrieved the true explanation. Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. RASHI >ZL: > : Chagiga 3b: > > : "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu > : miRo'eh echad." One G-d gave them, one source/leader > : said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As it says (Shemos > : 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh". > > : ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof > : from any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he > : explains: "Parness echad amran" to mean: You don't have anyone > :bringing a proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue > : against Moshe Rabbeynu." > >RMB: DH "kulan Keil Echad amran": You do not have a disputant bringing a > proof from the bible of another god, only from Toras E-lokeinu ZL: My point is, had Rashi held that ''kulam nitnu miRoeh echad'' meant that Hashem literally assigned and transmitted contradicting halachic statuses to all things and actions, he would have said, "kulan Keil Echad amran": 'Hashem gave both sides.' Period. Or he would have left the Gemora without comment, and we would have the situation you claimed we have, that the rishonim did not reinterpret it. Obviously, something is bothering Rashi. Obviously, I claim, it's the literal take. >RMB: DH "Parnes Echad amran": You one have [no] one bring[ing] a proof from the > words of a navi to dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu. > > Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both > will indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to > find. ZL: Also docheik. Rashi did not leave the words ''Parness echad amran'' at face value, nor simply say, '' "Parnes Echad amran': Moshe gave us both sides of the machlokess.'' Instead, Rashi is explaining that what the Gemora means by saying ''Parnes Echad amran'' is that both sides of the machlokess are basing themselves on Moshe Rabbeynu's words, and not someone else's. Obviously a move away from the literal take. ============ >ZL: DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes": "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]... > > RMB: Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi! > ZL:''Lev l'Shamayim'' means sincere intention. If it doesn't refer to their intention to understand the matter, what is it referring to? > RMB: Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are > going to find Emes. I have no problem with Rashi holding that after discussion the consensus the rabbanim reach with identify the emes (as the Ran does). But here he says nothing about the results of their intentions. In explaining why one should learn all the contradicting shittos, Rashi introduces the factor of liban laShamayiim. Why? If all the contradicting shittos are equally correct, that alone should be the entire reason to learn them all. There would be no reason to introduce the factor of liban laShamayim. Your suggestion that by saying liban laShamayim, he really meant to imply that they are reaching ''an'' emes, is docheik. The ikkar is chaser min hasafer. He is saying that one should listen to all the shittos, since they are all valid attempts to understand the matter. This is obviously an intentional move away from a literal understanding that Hashem told Moshe opposite pesakim. Incidentally, when the Midrashim say that Hashem revealed to Moshe the factors pro and con that should be taken into consideration ''l'kall davar v'davar,'' I originally thought ''l'kall davar v'davar'' translated ''for each and every future situation.'' But the slight girsa difference in Midrash Tehillim (Buber 12:7) clarifies that it means ''for each and every dibur (statement) of Hashem.'' Thus means that when Hashem said, for instance, that a sheretz is tamei, rather than listing the virtually infinite number of cases this would apply to (i.e. giving the Torah in chatichos form), he provided Moshe with 39 factors pro and con for what makes something tamie like a sheretz. >RMB: (Rashi:) Since all of them have their hearTs toward Shamayim, make your ear > listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide > which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him. > > "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone. ZL: Like a funnel. The question was: There are so may different opinions! Which one should I learn? (By the way, it's asking about learning, not poskening.) Answer: Make an effort to widen your ears (and mind) like a funnel. Learn all of them. But then, see which makes most sense (as it continues below), and learn it that way. >RMB: Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or > even which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher'' > ZL: Actually, ''lehavkhin ei zeh yichshar.'' The incorrect nikud was my error. It's from a posuk in Kohelless 12:6. ''In the morning plant your seed, and in the evening do not let your hand rest [from doing so again], because you do not know which [attempt] yichshar, whether this or this, and if both of them as one, they are good.'' In Yevamos 55b Rashi explains this posuk's ''yichshar'' to mean ''yatzliach''--succeed. > RMB: > -- to decide which YOU MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' > the halakhah to be like. ZL: Whether it's ''yichshar'' or ''YIkasher,'' there's no second person pronoun there. Regardless, the thought is LEHAVCHIN which of the two contradictory bids will pass scrutiny. It does not mean, to choose (livchor) between the two based on one's proclivities towards gevurah or chessed, v'chulu, but /lehavchin/, to distinguish (as in /l'havchin/ bein yom uvain layla; zocheh /l'havchin/ bein dinie mammonos l'dinei nefashos [Brachos 63b]); to test ''/bochein/ levavos''); to determine which conclusion will emerge as standing scrutiny (b'zos /tibacheninu/.../v'yibacheinu/ divreichem ha-emes itchem''); to determine another's desire (''Al daas aviv--b-katan sheh-yeida /lehavchin /she-haKibui /zeh /noach l'aviv v'oseh bishvilo'' ). The Kohelles mashal speaks of an objective observation of which seed or plant will succeed in thriving in this particular soil, at this particular time and this particular climate, etc. In the nimshal, the final halacha mirrors the one reality, determined by the objective observation of which of the two options, in the particular circumstances at hand, responds positively to the test for truth, conducted by application of the methods of drash, precedent, etc. > ZL: > : Identical to the Ritva ... > RMB: > Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. ZL: That /liban laShamayim/ means sincere intention is standard and, I believe, exclusive usage. > >RMB: And ignored that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is > true. > > ZL: The verb here (/yichshar/) isn't even in hiphil or piel, so there's no ''making'' kosher here. Again, the operational word is /lehavchin/, to distinguish which of the two understandings ''/yichshar/,'' will prove viable. And that understanding, of course, will lead to the posek's pesak. ==================== > RMB: > For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates > the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before > "ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in > > page 2): > > He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he sees > according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather, "eilu > va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in their > rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or forgot his > tradition... > > Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about > what the rebbe said. ZL: (Just a note that whereas Rashi says ''meshakker'', Tosefos says ''ta-ah b-shemu-aso.'' Sheker, too, does not necessarily mean ''lying,'' just saying something that is not true. I don't think Rashi would argue with this.) > RMB: A normal machloqes, where they disagree about the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval) > this case where "meshaqer o shakhack". ZL: What about where they are disagreeing over what a rebbi meant, or what the Tannaim or Mishnah meant, or what Moshe Rabbeynu meant? If those are not ''normal machlokos,'' you've just eliminated just about every relevant machlokos we know of from the category of eilu v'eilu. > RMB: > What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is > the exception. ZL: Ritva: ''It is better for us to say that two Amoraim are having their ?own argument about their own opinions, than to say that ?Amoraim are arguing over one Amora. Meaning, it is more ?likely to say that R. Yochonon and R. Yehoshua ben Levy ?are arguing their own points?that each one says what the halacha ?should be in his own opinion, so that neither one of them ?would be saying something that [by necessity] is false, but ??"these and those are the words of the Living G-d." But when ?we say that the disciples of one mentor are arguing over ?what his words were, one saying this, and one saying that, it ?seems that one of them is lying or forgot the information he ?learned, something one should refrain as much as possible ?from saying. And as Rashi z"l explains.? And although here, nevertheless, R. Yochonon and R. ?Yehoshua ben Levy are [still] arguing over what Tannaim were ?arguing over, this too is [merely] arguing over their own ?opinions, for they did not learn [the correct understanding of ?the Tannaim's dispute] from the Tannaim and did not ?receive a transmitted report originating from them. Instead, ?each of these Amoraim is saying what seems to him to be ?correct to say the Tannaim are arguing over. ?'' When they are making opposite claims of what is reasonable and resultant from the rules of the 13 middos, eilue v'eilu does apply. That's the rule. When they are making opposite claims of what their immediate teacher's words (or even intent) were, eilue v'eilu doesn't apply. That's the ''exception.'' I did not say otherwise. We're just disagreeing over what Ritva is saying eilu v'elilu means in such cases means. But according to you, why is Ritva saying one /cannot /say eilu v'eilu when they are disagreeing over their rebbi's words? According to you, even if one of them is wrong about whether the rebbi said assur or mutar, he is still saying divrei Elokim, because, according to you, Hashem said both. As I explain it, Ritva is explaining that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim means that each side is offering a sincere and competent attempt to gauge the Emes (l'amito) whether correct or not. Disagreement about a rebbi's very words (a rare occurence) indicates, or at least creates the impression of, incompetence (forgetting or lying), so eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim does not apply. But when their opposite claims of what someone in the more distant past said or meant, their competence is not called into question. It is natural for information to get lost over time. Therefore, it still qualifies as divrei Elokim. ===================== > RMB: > I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the > conversation. ZL: I am going step-by-step, and first tackling your claim that rov rishonim hold that Hashem and Moshe literally handed down opposite halachos for situations, and hold that the identical situation has opposite halachos (if not l'maaseh, then klappei shmaya). I do not want to go to the next step (although I have what to say about it) before this is settled. (Reminds me of, l-havdil, the Ramban's Vikuach, where he does not want to discuss whether the Talmud teaches that Moshiach that his opponent alleges claim, is G-d, before settling whether the Talmud holds Moshiach came.) ================= >ZL: ... : Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos > brought to : an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." The : reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi > (two-panim)-free, and : machlokess-free as the characteristic of > "Torah b'amitah," (and not just : halacha b'amitah), indicates that > there was a true, single din for each : situation that was the emes > of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began. >RMB: > 47a DH "ha'eshkolos": It is explained in the gemara that all of them, > until their era, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as > is says in Chagiga (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah > > Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. ZL: It's the last Rashi on 47b. RMB: > You are assuming that Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... > [because] they all said things as they were given..." ZL: No. There was no machlokess. [Rather,] they all said [the same things; namely] things as they were given to Moshe at Sinai. Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi. > RMB: Which is not accumulative either, and goes back to forgetting / > imperfect retrieval. ZL: Yes. As I laid it out, I see all rishonim acknowledging that machlokoess is due to loss of a key principle given at Sinai that would determine the weight of the various relevant factors, to reveal the true status of the thing or action in question. > RMB: The missing connective could just as well be "despite". ZL: "there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael /despite /the fact that they all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai''?? This does not make sense. And Rashi would have to say ''af al pi'' if he meant ''despite.' >RMB: For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different > Batei Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that > only weren't machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim > lemaaseh for different eras. ZL: Agreed. Also, conflicting pesakim between Moshe and Aharon, Dovid haMelech and Shaul, Esther and Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin. When we say there was no machlokess previously, we mean that after all discussion, a conclusion was reached. The semicha machlokess, was however, the first to remain unsolved through generations (Tosefos Chagigah 16a DH Yosey ben Yoezer etc., Gra note 1 on Temura 16a, Maharatz Chayos, Mishpat haHoraa. 9). The machlokess was not settled in the generation that raised it (the generaiton of Yosey ben Yoe-ezer). Thus, when he died, we had the first phenomenon of unsettled machlokess and Torah with dofi. > RMB: > Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH > "shisin hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini > wasn't atum ba'adamah, ZL: Quibble: It was a fact (not just the opinion of Shlomo) that the mizbeyach in Bayis Sheini wasn't atum ba'adamah. The difference between Shlomo and the Sanhedrin of Bayis Rishon and Ezra's Sanhedrin of Bayis Sheyni was whether the Torah's prescription of ''mizbach adamah'' required that it be atum ba'adamah, made of solid earth, or only that it be attached to the ground. > RMB: and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did nisuch as the > shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it. ZL: They both did libations, and in both cases the liquid flowed into the permanently located drain holes in the ground, a requirement all agreed to. The only difference is that in Bayis Sheyni, Ezra's Beis Din allowed digging channels through the alter leading to the drain holes. This allowed an expansion of the alter even though it would cover the drain holes. (Again, Shlomo took ''mizbach adamah [Shmos 2:24] to mean an alter of solid dirt, while Ezra took it only be a requirement that the alter was attached to the ground.) Ezra's new interpretation of the posuk left Shlomo's nissuch just fine. On the other hand, you could say that according to Shlomo, Ezra built an illegitimate mizbeach, which is indeed a daunting thought, but such is the nature of machlokess. (Although one may in this case claim that Shlomo would have agreed that the Torah allowed for a secondary meaning of mizbach adama if and when the times required a larger alter.) ==================== ZL > : [ Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that until the era of Zugos, there was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. > They all said things as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they > were the first who disagreed...This was the first machloqes in Israel in > words of Torah] the first of the Zuggos > brought to an end to "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha > umachlokess." > How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down > opposite halachos? Will you say that through the generations up > until the Zugos, even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they > preserved the shitta that was not Torah b'amito to be available for > later generations to choose? > >RMB: Yes. > Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are > derivable -- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to > "Say" both! ZL: Now you're getting closer to my claim, if you would just eliminate your last 6 words. And with the qualification that nevertheless, ultimately the derivability of one halachic option is stronger than its opposite. > > Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah RMB: > page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working > the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah ZL: Beis Hillel was also working the system. ''Both of them were bringing proofs from the Torah.'' I hope you don't think BH disregarded the system yet because they were nice, the halacha goes their way. RMB: > "veChadei QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more > joy-making, as Beis Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through > their anavah, were zokhin to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes > le'amito, ZL: I disagree with your proposal [and insertion in brackets] that ''emes,'' stam, and all the less, ''THE emes,'' stam, is used to indicate ''emes lehora'ah'' vs ''emes'' period. If you can find a rishon, never mind rov rishonim, explicitly making such a distinction, let me know. This is simply not the way the language is used. RMB: as HQBH wouldn't be thrilled with a bright person's ability > to all the better to fool himself. ZL: The Korban HaEidah himself indicates that charifus is reasoning so involved, complicated and tedious that others cannot follow it or even stay awake. The pesak of the charif may still be factually wrong (or right) about the un-hyphenated emes. Nevertheless, Hashem is thrilled with people who take Torah seriously and engage in intensive and sharp debate with proofs about its meaning, even if they reach the wrong conclusions, ''for through this is seen the esteem of the glory of His Torah.'' I'm sure that the nachas of seeing one's sons engaged and animated and arguing over learning Torah is not dependent upon whether one agrees with their conclusions. Yet somehow, as a rule, the anivasdik attitude of Beis Hillel, demonstrated by their treatment of their opponents, helped them arrive at the unhyphenated emes. And in cases where they were finally modeh to Beis Shammai, even though they were wrong at first, they eventually conformed to the truth. And not to forget, at times BS also showed humility and were modeh to BH. RMB : Nor would their wrong answer help > you decide another case. ZL: Nothing was said about their wrong answer helping. ''It is also impossible that there will not come out of their pilpul something needed for teaching elsewhere.'' The sevaros and facts, corrections and tweakings developed in the argumentation, even when ultimately not relevant in the case in dispute, can be applicable or helpful in other cases. Similar to Rashi in Kesubos: Different sevoros apply, subject to slight changes in circumstances. > RMB: > And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... > mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA". These final words fit my claim just fine because I'm saying the point of poskening alibah dehilchisa is to distinguish the un-hyphenated emes. The halacha is always like BH, for they were zocheh to be mekavven to the emes because they were humble. And it is written: ''This is the Torah...from it will be seen wonders according to the halacha.'' But note that the Korban HaEida is commenting on the eili v'eilu quality of the machlokos between BS and BH. So you now seem to be saying that ''mimenah nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA'' indicates that eilu v'eilu refers to corectly matching a previously established halacha. This contradicts what you said previously, that eilu v'eilu refers not to emes l-hora-a, but to contradictory emeses la-amita. ======================= > RMB: More, when I have the time. ZL: I am amazed you find the time for what you do. Bli nedder, I'll respond to your new post eventually. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 09:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak, and RMH's essay In-Reply-To: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> References: <6a79a778-04e7-cf89-00ac-9d4673d17f20@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161219173507.GA19318@aishdas.org> The sources to RZL's most recent post are available at including part of Derashos haRan #5 and Yevamos 62b. On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RMB (Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 157) maintains that the Ran broke : with the Rambam and Geonim by asserting that Hashem and Moshe : literally transmitted, as truth, both sides of future disputes, : despite their being contradictory and incompatible... Not at all. I am again going to back away from the sources and draw the big picture, since the feedback I'm getting from RZL's posts is that my position is not coming across. I am saying that according to all rishonim, Hashem gave Moshe most of the peratim of halakhah by giving him a system from which they could be derived (*). This is how the story of MRAH visiting R' Aqiva's shiur is most popularly explained in contemporary sources. Moshe didn't know the conclusions, but they were given to Moshe implicitly. As RZL put it: : This is similar to what R. Avahu tells us in Sh'mos Rabbah (41:6): : And did Moses actually learn the entire Torah?! It (Iyov 11:9) says : that '[the Torah] is vaster than the Earth ... and wider than the : Sea.' And in forty days Moses learned it all?! No. It was the : overall principles that G-d taught Moshe." Also, the rishonim realized that in practice we regularly do reach conflicting conclusions using the rules of derashah and sevarah. According to the vast majority of Rishonim, this is understood by taking the gemara (found in both shasin) literally -- Hashem intentionally gave us 49 means of proving each side of the din. He also gave us a rule for deciding which to follow. But it's not that one is wrong and one is right, because MRAH (for example) would be incapable of counting the heads when they voted on one of the dinim he heard R' Aqiva present. The answer, like the head count, is contextual -- which is better for us as our history, culture and avodas Hashem evolve. (Or, as the Maharal put it, which of the elements that go into the din come to the fore in our situation.) This is also what one would conclude reading "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim" literally. According to the Rambam, and Maimonidians like Chakhmei Provence (mentioned by the Shlah; possibly also according to the Chinukh, but he could be read either way) this is logically impossible. Law of Contradiction and all -- how can two conflicting answers both be emes? So, HQBH did know that we humans would give divergent interpretations of halakhah -- but only because of human fraily. Rov is not part of what makes the law the law, but a means of minimizing the chance that we are following a faulty derivation of the din rather than the rish one. But then one has to read peshatim into what the gemaros "must have" meant. And there is no proof that the mesorah bought into the LoC. There are other indications, such as the treatment of safeiq and tannaim, to show that Classical Logic may not be how halakhah works. I've pointed out known cases where Classical Logic is eschewed for more modern variants. Two central examples: 1- When describing a spectrum, Fuzzy Logic, Proability, Confidence levels work better than trying to make binary predicates and falling prey to the Sorites Paradox (removing which grain of sand separates a mound of sand from having no mound)? 2- The human condition is all about conflicting values, dialectics, antinomies and ambivalence. When you describe human events, two ways of analyzing what happened can produce conflicting but accurate results. Both of these appy. When human life begins is an example of a 9 month long Sorites Paradox. And whether one chases Chesed or Gevurah, Shalom or Emes, can separate Batei Hillel and Shammai. But does that make either choice "immoral"? AND... Halakhah is a law, not a truth. Even if we were in a domain where conflicting truths cannot co-exist, does that rule out conflicting valid interpretations of the law? And from this we get the Rambam's pesaq in Mamrim 2:1, that accepted interpretations do not require says that new legislation requires a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan to be overturned. (Even though 2:2 says that new legislation does.) Because "ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os" and if that earlier BD's conclusion appears to be in error, then he can overturn it. Most of our qehillos have a far stronger notion of precedent than that. For example, the rules in the Shakh's qunterus (after YD 242) #1 -- a poseiq can overturn a ta'us on a devar mishnah, but not when the cause for differing is shiqul hada'as. Even the Gra and Brisk only follow their own interpretations lehachmir (mayim acharonim) or when they would be equally yotzei either way (eg 2 matzos, skipping the pasuq from Zekhariah at the end of Aleinu, or the like). --- Flamebait: I think that the Rambam's desire to treat halakhah as a Classical Logic truth system ties back to his Aristotilian theory of akrasia. (Akrasia: why people make bad choices.) That it's all about opionion, which can be faulty, versus knowledge. Right behavior is a side-effect of correct knowldge. Just as he opens and closes the Moreh by talking about how knowledge is the ultimate form of human perfection, moreso than ethics and middos. And he puts nevu'ah on the same spectrum as philosophy, if beyond it. Hashgachah peratis is also proportional to knowledge. All of which is very hard to justify from Chazal as well. The Ramnbam's very Greek way of looking at Torah impacted how he saw the process of pesaq as well. --- * On the subjevt of all rishonim believing that most of halakhah was given implicitly, in derivable form: Rashi appears to say differently on that gemara (Menachos 29b, DH "nisyashvah da'ato). Rashi says that Moshe was calmed because it was given in his name "even though he hadn't yet received it". One could ttake that to mean that Moshe did receive every perat during the course of matan Torah, but he visited the future before finishing his own studies. However, Rashi himself (and followed by the Ritva) draws a distinction between disputes in law and disputes in what someone said. So Rashi must mean that even the means of deriving the dinim Moshe heard in R' Aqiva's shiur weren't given yet. With Rashi assuming that MRAH would be capable of filling in the gap himself and realizing how R' Aqiva and the rabbanim before him reach the taught law. Had Moshe's education been complete before the trip. --- : I argued that this is a misreading of the Ran, because he explicitly : rejected the concept that it is merely by the decree of the sages : that objects are tahor or tamie, and actions are mutar or assur. Not mutar or assur. : Just as poison is poisonous even if the consensus of doctors : otherwise, he says, so too a tamei object or a forbidden action will : produce negative effects on the soul, regardless of the consensus of : the sages. And yet he also says that Hashem gave us both shitos. The answer being that he only expects halakhah to minimize our exposure such metaphysical danger, to usually be right. In fact, the text you circle in blue (on daf 19, pg 2 of the pdf) says "umah shehayu metam'in LO HAYAH RAQ MIQOTZER SIKHLAM". I am not sure why you circled this, did you miss the "lo"? But I already played this game twice now, you cite things, I show how parts you didn't highlight contradict your conclusion, you cite more things, not addressing my quotes. I'm kinda done with that. Here was something interesting, as in that paragraph the Ran spells out the Constitutive theory. Including in the part you circle. ... : In his more recent post, RMB raises an interesting point, that : Hashem's response to Moshe's request for clarity does not direct him : to apply the methodology to arrive at the halacha... My point was that the methodology doesn't guarantee truth. Moshe is told that the future generations' vote is more determinant than his own first-hand opinion. : Additionally, if one speaks of ''rov rishonim,'' one must factor in : the opinion of (how many?) Geonim in addition to the Rambam. And how many baalei Tosafos? In any case, as you hopefully now see, the difference between the Rambam's understanding of the other derivation being wrong and the rov's position that the other derivation is simply less useful for us as we stand now is too subtle to assume that we know what the geonim held. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 11:00:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:00:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in Yehudah) and Binyamin. So who are the remaining 10 tribes (ie I count only 9). This is all based on including Ephraim and Menashe and excluding Levi. If we list Levi and combine the other 2 into Yosef then there were 4 tribes in the south (assuming most Levites and cohanim were wth the Bet HaMikdash in Jerusalem) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 13:53:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/12/16 14:00, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > we traditionally mention the 10 northern tribes versus the 2 southern > tribes (based on pesukim to Yaravam). > > However, there were 3 tribes in the south Yehuda, Shimon (absorbed in > Yehudah) and Binyamin. Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? On the contrary, it seems clear that Shim`on was one of the rebel tribes that went with Yerov`om. For instance DH2 15:9 tells of defectors from Efrayim, Menashe, and Shim`on. Also Ya`acov said that Shim`on would be spread out among the other tribes, so most of it would have been in the north. -- Zev Sero Winter has officially begun zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 17:47:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220014704.GA14205@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:53:52PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? Yehoshua pereq 19. According to the Ralbag, the use of "yeser ha'am" in Melakhim I 12:23 when describing Yehudah and Binyamin it refers to Shim'on. Divrei haYamim I 4:31-43 seems to have them moving out in David haMelekh's day. To places like Gedor and Har Sei'ir in Edom -- not the north. Shalesheles haQabalah says that Sancheirev's inroads into Malkhus Yehudah succeeded in dislocating Shim'on. Or perhaps, those of Shim'on who remained. This requires assuming that Shim'on's cities were on the border of Yehudah, not in the middle. Which would fit if their nachalah was originally supposed to be Azza / Eretz Pelishtim, and they never conquered it. It is noted that "Shi'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 19 15:37:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:37:06 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] The Mizinke Dance: Tradition, Folklore or Other? In-Reply-To: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> References: <1481911132312.5705@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7EAAEB89-B2C8-4594-AC53-82770A3C1954@gmail.com> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:44 pm, via Avodah wrote: From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" > Please see the article at > > from Jewish Action Magazine. >> "Based upon the information I had culled, I felt it reasonable >> to deduce that the mizinke had become a staple at weddings due to one >> reason: bandleaders." Professor Levine, You and perhaps other readers may be interested with what I found. I wrote it 5 years ago ago, and can't remember; I am also a band leader/singer (and academic) and I can assure you it is not I who push for this, anymore than the Hungarians push for their Badchan interspersed with dancing with the Kallah. I also don't push back. I do as I'm told :-) I was once asked to sing it when out of state because the band was unacquainted, so I obliged. Don't rush too quickly to conclusions. In Melbourne, with the 2nd largest number of Polish Holocaust survivors in the World (outside of Israel) I can assure you, that Mezinke was ubiquitous, and lots of fun and simcha for the families (as well as very emotional in some cases). I'm not sure if I captured every post I did on this with the above link but start from the bottom and move up. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 06:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Why_do_many_people_say_=93Bli_Neder=94_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28without_making_a_vow=29_whenever_they_say_they_will_d?= =?windows-1252?q?onate_money_to_tzedakah=3F?= Message-ID: <1482242607531.47045@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Why do many people say ?Bli Neder? (without making a vow) whenever they say they will donate money to tzedakah? A. There is a Biblical requirement to fulfill one?s vow, as detailed in the beginning of Parashas Mattos (Bemidbar 30:3). Ordinarily, to be considered a vow a person must explicitly say, ?I swear (or vow) to do such and such.? However, if a person pledges to do a mitzvah, it is considered a vow even if the person did not use the phrase ?I swear.? Similarly, if a person performed a good deed three times, it attains the status of a vow. Because of the risk inherent in not fulfilling a vow, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 203:4) recommends adding the words ?Bli Neder? (without making a neder) whenever one pledges to give tzedakah. Even when adding Bli Neder, the pledge should be fulfilled in any event. Nonetheless, if one inadvertently forgot to give the tzedakah, a vow is not violated if one said Bli Neder.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:26:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] origins of Nittel Message-ID: https://www.academia.edu/16775699/The_Ghost_in_the_Privy_The_Origins_of_Nittel_Nacht_and_Modes_of_Cultural_Exchange?auto=download on the interplay between xtian folk practices and jewish reaction in the origins of Nittel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 20 14:34:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:34:51 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] cha-nittel Message-ID: various nittel oriigins have been attributed--- including issues of tum'ah but also mourning. [eg torah/relations are forbidden on tisha bav, and also to those who practice Nittel]. i wonder why there wasn't a specific admonition to specifically limit hanuka celebration when dec 24 nite and 1st candle coincide-- especially since one aspect was forbidding jews [by the goyim ] to have candles lit on the eve of the xtian feast... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 01:21:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? Message-ID: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein was quoted as saying the following ( http://www.kikar.co.il/216994.html): *Rachel Imenu sat on the idols and didn't burn them. She wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations, she didn't want to burn them, rather to teach the Jewish people, I don't need any outside wisdom and therefore she was priviliged with having Yosef who astounded the world with his wisdom which was solely torah based. * *We have to instill in our daughters: A jewish home that is free of any trace of non-Jewish wisdom and learns only Torah will never be hurt.* Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? Rashi explains that she stole the idols to stop her father from worshipping them and the simple pshat is that she simply hadn't had any time to do anything with them (destroy them) because they were running away from Lavan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 21 03:32:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Kippur Thought In-Reply-To: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> References: <008201d25753$819edd60$84dc9820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161221113234.GA22675@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:51PM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : Besides everything everyone else said, there's a fundamental difference : between a bad thought and a bad action - when we have a bad action, we did : it, we can repent. But a bad thought can still lead to a bad action - so the : "potential energy" of the bad thought is worse than the bad action. Isn't this caused by a more fundamental difference? Teshuvah for a bad action is teshuvah for something in the past. Teshuvah for a bad de'iah (thought, middah, whatever) is for smething that is still in your head, in the present. And the teshuvah is doing something material to get rid of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 22 06:58:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat see for more details -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? Message-ID: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Note that they do not mention when one should eat the donuts! Q. Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? A. There is a dispute among the poskim concerning this question. Normally, in selecting the sequence of two mitzvos we are guided by the principle of tadir v'she'eino tadir - tadir kodem (the more frequent mitzvah is performed first). As such, the Taz (681:1) rules that Havdalah is recited first because it is the more frequently performed mitzvah. The Beiur Halacha (ibid.) quotes many acharonim who agree with the Taz including the Maharal MiPrague, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Pri Chodosh. This was also the custom of the Chazon Ish (Sefer Hilchos Chanukah, p.44 footnote 46). However, the Mechaber and the Rama (681:2), followed by the Magen Avraham, Eliyahu Raba and Gra (see Beiur Halacha ibid.), maintain that Ner Chanukah comes first. Their rationale is that delaying the departure of Shabbos is more important than the principle of tadir. A second reason to prioritize Chanukah is that one performs Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) with the kindling of the Chanukah lights. In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan 681:2). At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). It should be noted that one is prohibited from doing any melachah after Shabbos, even if Shabbos has concluded, until he recites Ata Chonantanu in Shmoneh Esrei. If he forgot to say Ata Chonantanu, he should say the words 'baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol' before lighting (MB 681:2). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:29:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Which comes first this Motzei Shabbos, Chanukah lights or Havdalah? In-Reply-To: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> References: <1482507834985.40988@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161223172916.GA4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In Shul, the accepted minhag is to light Chanukah lights first (Mishna : Berura and Beiur Halacha, ibid.). Possibly, this is because the great : Pirsumei Nisa for an entire shul is very significant (see Aruch HaShulchan : 681:2). ... where RYME quotes the BY that the reason is to get yesterday out first before dealing with the next day. He then quotes the Rama in support. He also notes that havdalah is tadir, and therefore it should be tadir qodem. Last he quotes the MA, the Elyah Raba and Gra, that it really depends on "Atah Chonantanu". So that either way havdalah is first. And that is more true in shul than when lighting neir ish ubeiso. And then there's the question of how to make "me'orei ha'eish" after lighting the menorah. (Kol Bo in the name of the Raavad.) And if you want to say that because this shimush isn't hana'ah, it's not a problem, RYME reminds you that you light a shamash. : At home one should follow his own minhag since there is a valid : basis for both viewpoints (MB and BH, ibid.). If one has no minhag, he : can choose what to do since both are valid minhagim (see end of Beiur : Halacha, ibid., in the name of the Pri Megodim). The AhS concludes both are indeed worth consideration, but for all the reasons he gave above, havdalah being first (like the Taz) "asi shapir". Despite my own impression that his earlier discussion had no clear winner. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 07:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:31:49 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above Quesion------ 1} the answers to both questions being 'a' makes one a normative jew. can one be a normative jew if one answers either 'c' alone to both, or 'b' and 'c' [ ie can one believe anything other that 'a' alone and be a normative jew? 2} if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 09:58:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161223175835.GB4328@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:31:49AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : -- MIME section 1 text/plain -------------------- : 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: : : a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the : rainbow reminded Him not to I don't think this has much iteral meaning. G-d doesn't need reminders, he doesn't change his mind in a literal sense, etc... : b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood : and His promise not to repeat it : c. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain : angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow or d. the RBSO set up a physical principal that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow, which He made into a reminder of the promise by pointing it out as such to Noach. This is shitas haRamban. Another possibility (a rationalist take on b) is that the physics underlying rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis, but the humidity in the air and/or the altitude or thickness of the cloud layer didn't cause rainbows after a rain. Then, after the climate change brought about by the mabul, rainbows started happening. A second take on (b): R/Dr Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggested that many of the values we consider physical constants declined over time. A one example, h-bar, the minimum possible uncertainty in a quantum duality (eg position and momentum) didn't reach a microscopic size until some time during the 6 days of bereishis. And the speed of light (which only has meaning in proportion to other constants) declined over time, giving a false reading for the age of the universe if you assumed it was really constant. And also making the entire line between yeish and ayin, between tohu vavohu and existence, blurry to the point of meaningless. That is why "tohu vavohu", the non-existence is defined in terms of chaos. (I recall REE asking, if all is void, what is being chaotic?) So they asymptotically reached current values, and the laws of physics didn't act as we expect them to until "yom HAshishi" -- the hinted-at real end of creation, Matan Torah. And REE believed that the visible portion of the spectrum caused by raindrops in the air reached a noticable width only at the end of the mabul. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:12:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo Message-ID: <1482516754349.27104@stevens.edu> Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... To find out what to do, see the full article: "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv, a Lichtige Chanuka, and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 23 10:46:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: C. The RBSO doesn't need a reminder; we do. When we don't need a reminder they don't happen. That doesn't mean we did something wrong at the specific moment when they happen, it just means we're a generation that needs such reminders from time to time, so we get them. Before the flood either the laws worked differently so there were no rainbows, or else rainbows had no special significance and were just pretty things to give us pleasure and remind us to thank Hashem for creating them. Where did you see that A is normative, and that one must believe A? -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 21:19:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes Message-ID: In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: > : Who says Shim`on was absorbed into Yehuda and remained in the south? > Yehoshua pereq 19. < To which I would add the implications of Shof'tim 1. > It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own territory. < So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is based on distinct *nachalah*. Gut Chanukah! All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:03:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226000308.GA17367@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V34n162, R'Micha noted to R'Zev: :> It is noted that "Shi[m]'on veLevi achim", and neither got their own :> territory. : So, to go back to R'Eli's question, the two "southern" *shvatim* [w/ a : distinct *nachalah*] are Y'hudah and Binyamin; and the 10 vs. 2 count is : based on distinct *nachalah*. Whether we count Shim'in among Malkhus Yehudah or not as a shevet at all, we do not have 10 shevatim left for Malkhus Yisrael. 12 brothers, minus Yosef, plus Ephraim & Menasheh = 13 Minus Levi & Shim'on would leave 11 disinct nachalos. Meaning, Yehudah and Binyamin in the south, and only 9 shevatim in the north. (Personally, I like the resolutions I already posted, that either 1- Shim'on eventually does move north in David's day and fall along with the rest of Malkhus Yisrael, or 2- Sancheirev does make inroads into western Malkhus Yehudah, it is possible Shim'on was lost then.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 25 16:10:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rachel didn't burn the idols because she wanted to denigrate the wisdom of the other nations? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161226001007.GB17367@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:21:32AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Does anyone know a source for this idea that Rachel didn't burn the idols : because she wanted to denigrate outside wisdom? ... The Zohar ad loc (164b ) says it was to denigrate AZ and thereby ween her father from them. This being the Zohar, it doesn't necessarily mean she expected her father to learn about hte denigration; it could be some kind of metaphysical causality involved. Also, the two clauses are quite a distance apart. I might be misunderstanding with my "and thereby" connecting them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 26 05:31:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel posted: > A psak of R Rabinowitz allows the use of card readers and > many other gadgets used for opening hotels doors on shabbat > see for more details Here's the excerpt that I want to focus on: > However, according to HaRav Rabinowitz, today, many electronic > devices do not result in the closure of a circuit or creation > of a new flow of electricity and the circuits are based on > miniature automatic semi-conductors, in which the current is > virtually undetectable and therefore uvda d'chol is not applicable. What does "virtually undetectable" mean? In context, he seems to take it to mean the same thing as "UNdetectable", but I would think it is the same as "IS detectable". What is the shiur of detectability? Even if he has proven that there's no melacha here, how does that prove that uvda d'chol is not applicable? The whole idea of invoking uvda d'chol is for situations where there's no melacha. You have to ask whether the activity is Shabbosdik, and if it isn't, then it is an uvda d'chol, whether there's melacha involved or not. (I am not getting into the technical definition of uvda d'chol here, only isolating it from the concept of melacha.) But actually, I am less worried about the "l'halacha", and much more concerned about the "l'maaseh". How is the average person going to know whether or not a given device meets these conditions? He himself write that this applies to "many" such devices. How can I know which ones are sufficiently advanced? Another quote: > In some of the sensors there is an LED indicator but the > technology of LED is such that there is no ignition/kindling. > There is no prohibition of "nolad" in this technology according > to Rabbi Dror Fixler. Okay, so there's no nolad. What of the much more serious melacha of mav'ir? Is this not a fire? My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. Is Rabbi Fixler requiring heat alone? Is he saying that because there is no heat from an LED it does not constitute fire, despite the fact that it does generate light? If that's his view, I would like to hear more about it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 24 12:25:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <54af3b8b-2e4f-eff3-56a7-37561bc35dcf@zahav.net.il> From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it". I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 03:02:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:02:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach Message-ID: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kan or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kach. However, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kan. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:52:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al Ha'Nissim. The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 05:19:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:19:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "My understanding is that halachic fire is defined by either heat OR light. " I don't believe that is correct. There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. It just so happens that until recent times there was no way to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:30:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8297468d-4f0c-43d3-8cf0-94854e670337@sero.name> On 27/12/16 08:52, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > What I sent out before was not correct. It should have read > >> Different sidurim have either V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach in Al >> Ha'Nissim. > The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim > Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, > have V'Achar Kayn. R Shabsi Sofer's siddur, which *is* considered authoritative, says that all the siddurim have "kach", and so it is also in Abudarhem, however his own opinion is that it would be better to say "kein", because that is leshon mikra. That's presumably why Roedelheim and Baer, who preferred leshon mikra throughout their siddurim, amended this too. However although in general "all brachos and prayers use leshon mikra as much as possible" (SAhR 67:5, cf Brachos 38b Tosfos d"h Vehilchesa), if this particular prayer were intended to be in leshon mikra it would say "yemei chanukah *eileh*", not "eilu". "Eilu" is leshon chachamim, and its use would seem to indicate that this prayer was composed in that dialect. (from R LY Raskin's notes on the AR's siddur) -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 07:50:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The Artscroll siddur has V'Achar Kayn. Also, both the Roedelheim Siddur and Seligman Baer's Siddur, both considered to be authoritative, have V'Achar Kayn. However, both Roedelheim and R' Baer are authoritative sources of German nusach. There is no reason to assume East European traditional nusach was necessarily identical. Sepharadim have "ve'achar kakh", as do Chassidim (including Chabad's "Nusach Ari") and the Gra. However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. To my mind, this is the usual machloqes about praying in Tanakhi vs Mishnaic Hebrew, and less linked to which was original. Shemu'el I 10:5 "achar kein" Mishnah Berakhos 2:2, Pesachim 10:2, etc... use "achar kakh". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:33:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria Message-ID: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> [Originally posted on Areivim. -micha] >From an interview with Shivi Froman in Olam Katan (in reference to his fundraiser for Syrians) (my translation): Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. The only thing that I thought was that God commanded to live as if the world was created for me. If I feel that something is lacking or there is pain in this world, then I am lacking something and the pain is mine. If I can imagine something that God is telling me about Syria, it is this: "I created for you a black hole, pain, incredible evil in this world. Go and do something about it." I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 08:40:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko Message-ID: <1482856785311.3289@stevens.edu> See https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 09:07:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 10:30:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Q: You don't think that it is God's will (Hand of God) that our enemies are killing each other instead of uniting against us? A: No, I don't have those types of thoughts about God, he protests. ........" I can't imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't my God. _______________________________________________ I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all the other demands one one's resources. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] God's Will in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <20161227163328.GA20545@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20161227192026.GA6824@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 06:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :> I can't :> imagine that God allows me to watch people created in His image doing :> these things to one another and telling "enjoy the show". That isn't :> my God. : I can't imagine either side being so sure they know the mind of : HKB"H. Of course one has to make their best guess in the context of all : the other demands one one's resources. We can do better than guessing... We have Torah to work with to actually theorize. Especially since we're not just talking about what Hashem is thinking, but what He is thinking about how we should be feeling. I reposted RBW's email here with the hope that people would be motivated to bring sources on the subject. And with hopes this doesn't just repeat the binfol oyivkha discussion of 2011. To know the directions I am hoping to avoid repeating, see and following topics, and http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DROPS%20OF%20WINE among other threads, along with my conclusions after that discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 11:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah 1. you see a rainbow in the sky after the rain . you believe: a. the RBSO was going to at this moment destroy the world, but then the rainbow reminded Him not to b. the RBSO set up the rainbow of a reminder of the time of the Flood and His promise not to repeat it c. the RBSO set up a physical principal [NOTE: should be principle] that light bent at a certain angle by dispersed water produces a rainbow 2. while making the bracha 'zocher habrit' , one is thinking a, b, c as above [snip] 2] if one includes 'c' as part or all of his answer to number 2, does that detract from his yiddishkeit or make him non-normative? >>>>> The short answer to your question #2 is that no thought you might have as you recite the bracha is "non-normative." You can think whatever you want. Here in Florida we see rainbows almost every day in the summer for two reasons: 1. There are sunshowers almost every day. 2. There is a complete lack of tznius and there is a lot of immoral behavior going on. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. A person can get sick because he has been exposed to a contagious disease AND because he has sinned. These are different categories of explanation, but not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. My own thought when I make the bracha "zocher habris" is gratitude for the beauty that Hashem put into His world, and also gratitude that He has promised not to destroy His world, no matter how many battles we conservatives lose in the Culture Wars. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:36:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 PM 12/27/2016, Zev Sero wrote: >On 27/12/16 10:50, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > However, the original appears to be "achar kein" -- as per Seder R' > > Amaram Gaon, Machzor Vitri, and the Avudraham. > >Both Machzor Vitri and the Avudraham have "kach", not "kein". > >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33694&pgnum=263 >http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44589&pgnum=146 > >-- However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than both of the above, is it not?. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:44:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Correction to V'Achar Kayn or V'Achar Kach In-Reply-To: <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1482836553372.60963@stevens.edu> <1482846697028.95902@stevens.edu> <20161227155052.GD10759@aishdas.org> <76.ED.27613.AF0D2685@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20161227204402.GA32349@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 03:36:45PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : However, the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has kein. This is older than : both of the above, is it not?. Yes and no. Yes for the text itself, not necessarily for the words we're looking at. There are no really good manuscripts. They differ widely from each other and sometimes from what Seifer haManhig or the Avudraham say R' Amram held. And the older, Sepharadi versions of the text often are adulterated with the scribe's native nusach. Whereas we know that Ashkenaz accepted more of the SRAG when trying to standardize its nusach. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 12:38:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow In-Reply-To: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> References: <206ff05.5565e627.45941d06@aol.com> Message-ID: On 27/12/16 14:37, via Avodah wrote: > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them. Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 13:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] rainbow Message-ID: <2093072.38ebf667.45943696@aol.com> > Personally I think that rainbows are beautiful, and I think there are no > accidents. If Hashem made them beautiful then He meant for us to > appreciate their beauty and to have beautiful thoughts when we see them.[--TK] Which makes one wonder why generations such as that of RShBY are deprived of them. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name >>>>> I wonder how Rambam would have answered that question. I understand that he considered rainbows to be natural phenomena. One possible approach would be to say that for someone whose appreciation of Hashem's greatness is on a very high level, seeing a rainbow would be a spiritual yerida rather than an aliyah -- akin to breaking off from your Torah learning to say "mah na'eh ilan zeh." (Chazal seem to be saying that there was no rainbow in his life because his generation was on such a high level, or he was on such a high level, that there was no reason for Hashem to consider destroying the world, and therefore no reason for Hashem to put in the sky the "reminder" of His promise not to destroy the world. But that's hard to understand too, because there were plenty of sinners in RShBY's generation.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 27 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Achsenai Message-ID: I have several questions about the halacha of an achsenai who accomplishes his Ner Chanuka via a host. This post will be in three sections: First I will describe a typical scenario where this is done. Then I will give several questions about when one can use this procedure. Finally I have a basic question about the pruta involved. First, I would like to describe what I think is a fairly typical scenario where one might use this. Let's say that I am planning on having dinner at my home around candle lighting time, and I invited a guest. He really ought to light his menorah at *his* home, because he *has* his own home and does not live at my home. But it would be more convenient, for whatever reason, for him to light at *my* home. So he gives me a pruta to purchase a share of my oil, and then I can light while he stands with me listening to my brachos, and he is totally yotzay. There is no need at all for him to light again when he gets back to his own home. If I have made any mistakes in the above, then let's discuss them and not go any further. Now, when can we make use of this procedure? Does the guest have to actually eat in my home? Does it have to be a meal of bread, or can a snack suffice? Does he have to eat anything at all? Maybe it is enough that he sits down as a guest and we shmooze for the half-hour duration of the candles? Does he really have to stay in my home for the full half-hour at all? Does he really have to even *be* in my house at all? For example, if I meet him in the street, can he give me a pruta and be my guest in absentia? Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I don't understand what the pruta accomplishes. We are told that when the guest gives the pruta to the homeowner, he acquires a share in the oil. Big deal! What does ownership of the oil accomplish? He is a guest, not a resident, and he ought to be lighting in his own home. And this building is *not* his home. If the pruta is to accomplish anything, it ought to be paying for a share of the *home*. If he becomes a renter or part-owner of the home, then it makes sense that he can do his candle lighting here. But what does ownership of the oil accomplish? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 03:43:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the > prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows. > It just so happens that until recent times there was no way > to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs). I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven. By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do such glow sticks constitute "aish"? According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): > Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or > light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to > generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the > Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally > 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ... Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without light? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 28 09:45:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161228174547.GC30636@aishdas.org> : : I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is : exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for : Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat, : or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ... Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah. Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's about kibui. Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real coal (gacheles shel eitz). Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan. Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger. Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing. Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating metal is bishul, not hav'arah. Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even intentionally would have only been derabbanan. Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur deOraisa. : According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by : Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29): ... : Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice : of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer : opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without : light? Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only possible one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 06:32:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:32:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem Message-ID: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings. the entire article may be read at http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol All this comes to mind at this time since some perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so, who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a television audience composed of millions of viewers, is accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting, conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations, proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called rabbinic diplomas. While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and, what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning, Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray the Government, to associate with underworld elements all these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage committed there is added another dimension, namely the profanation of the Divine Name and that means the profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators themselves. What a sorry picture that is. Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity! What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher money manipulations? Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. __________________________________________________________ Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation is false. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter Message-ID: <20161229160602.GA3327@aishdas.org> Rabbi Hershel Schachter TorahWeb.org EILU V'EILU The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. ------------------------- [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 09:32:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav > Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, > but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul > HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a > manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation > is false. That is impossible. -- Zev Sero Have a brilliant Chanukah zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 11:02:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chillul Ha Shem In-Reply-To: <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> References: <1483021889762.47174@stevens.edu> <1b653ef8-01d1-a671-2f9c-56263a8a7304@sero.name> Message-ID: <20161229190210.GA25853@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav : >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, : >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul : >HaShem. Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a : >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation : >is false. : : That is impossible. One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin are real issurim. Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10. For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach" if one is not giving people nachas ruach. The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam". On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the positive and the negative to exclude 1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior, being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is not nocheh heimenu either. And 2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach" to HQBH either. Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem": 1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei. 2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui. (I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 29 20:50:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger cited: > Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim > is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa) > > Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul? In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather, something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light, exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if anyone objects, please speak up.) In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul? If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is *not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir. I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper Hatmana would violate Mav'ir. My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove. I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those ideas. Have at it! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 06:49:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] electronics on shabbat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161230144943.GA28599@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean : that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean : that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir? I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it. But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa, and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying "and not mav'ir". : I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without : light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the : halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve : the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat". They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc; H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical, adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt too. BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 30 11:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish Message-ID: <1483125602720.4656@stevens.edu> In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course. RSRH says that this approach is dangerous. The following is from his essay Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of course, that the results of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish. Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and raised your child al pi darko; if you had educated him to be a Jew, and to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general human culture and knowledge; if, from the very beginning, you would have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism, undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism and Jewish knowledge all the more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 31 18:08:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk Message-ID: The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the critical factor is when the marketplace empties out. Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk. It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos. That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning. Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come home from the market on Friday *afternoon*. Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside). This would seems to support that view. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: